LT4T 


Ji 


I 


REESE  LIBRARY 

OF  THE 

UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA. 


Class 


THE  ELIZABETHAN 
RELIGIOUS   SETTLEMENT 


LONDON:  GEORGE  BELL  AND  SONS 
PORTUGAL  ST.  LINCOLN'S  INN,  W.C. 
CAMBRIDGE:  DEIGHTON,  BELL  &  CO. 
NEW  YORK:  THE  MACMILLAN  CO. 
BOMBAY:      A.     H.     WHEELER    &     CO. 


THE  ELIZABETHAN 
RELIGIOUS    SETTLEMENT 

A  STUDY  OF  CONTEMPORARY  DOCUMENTS 


BY 

HENRY  NORBERT  BIRT,  O.S.B. 

PRIEST   OF   DOWNSIDE  ABBEY 


LONDON 

GEORGE  BELL  AND  SONS 

1907 


CHISWICK   PRESS  :     CHARLES   WHITTINGHAM   AND  CO. 
TOOKS   COURT,    CHANCERY   LANE,    LONDON. 


CONTENTS 


PAGE 

Preface vii 

CHAPTER  I 

Elizabeth's  Accession  and  the  First  Months  of  Her 

Reign i 

CHAPTER  II 

Elizabeth's  First  Parliament 42 

CHAPTER  III 
The  Westminster  Conference,  March — April,  1559     .       98 

CHAPTER  IV 

The  Clergy  and  the  Acts  of  Supremacy  and   Uni- 
formity: 

I.  The  Dismissal  of  the  Religious  and  the  Northern 

Visitation 120 

CHAPTER  V 

The  Clergy  and  the  Acts  of  Supremacy  and  Uni- 
formity: 

II.  The  Southern  Visitation  and  the  General  Sequel    .     166 

CHAPTER  VI 

The  Old  Episcopate  and  the  New  ....     207 

CHAPTER  VII 

The  Universities 253 

xv 


xvi  CONTENTS 

CHAPTER  VIII 

PAGE 

The  Task  of  the  Elizabethan  Bishops: 

I.  The  Northern  Province 297 

CHAPTER  IX 

The  Task  of  the  Elizabethan  Bishops  : 

II.  The  Southern  Province 343 

CHAPTER  X 
The  Task  of  the  Elizabethan  Bishops  : 

III.  The  Southern  Province — continued       .         .         .402 

CHAPTER  XI 
The  Rising  of  the  North,  1569 475 

CHAPTER  XII 

Attitude  of  the  Laity  to  the  Religious  Changes,  and 

the  Harrying  of  the  Papists 502 

Index 559 

LIST  OF  ILLUSTRATIONS 

TO  FACE 
PAGE 

Queen  Elizabeth Frontispiece 

Lord  Burghley,  Lord  Treasurer 42 

Sir  Nicholas  Bacon,  Lord  Chancellor      ....       98 
Nicholas    Heath,     Lord     Chancellor    of    England    and 

Catholic  Archbishop  of  York,  deprived         .         .         .207 
Matthew  Parker,  1st  Archbishop  of  Canterbury  conse- 
crated by  the  Edwardine  Ordinal  ....     343 
Edmund  Grindal,  successively  Bishop  of  London,  Arch- 
bishop of  York,  and  Archbishop  of  Canterbury    .  435 
Edmund  Plowden,  Catholic  Lawyer          .         .         .         .502 


TO 

F.  B. 


PREFACE 

THE  late  Lord  Acton  held  that  "  History  differs  from 
other  sciences  by  confining  the  author  to  matter 
supplied  by  the  sources.  The  author  does  not  put  in  reflec- 
tions, combinations,  explanations  of  his  own  not  suggested 
or  furnished  by  his  materials";  further,  he  emphasised  the 
need  of  "  self-denial,  which  is  the  condition  of  scientific 
history,"  found  fault  with  "  copiousness  and  superabund- 
ance of  style,"  and  praised  "  the  verification  of  quota- 
tions."1 I  have  had  these  principles  constantly  before  me 
in  preparing  the  following  pages;  trying,  moreover,  always 
to  remember  another  saying  of  the  same  eminent  worker, 
that  "  in  history  the  historian  has  to  disappear  and  leave 
the  facts  and  ideas  objectively  to  produce  their  own  effect."2 
But  it  has  been  no  easy  matter  to  glean  where  Mr.  J.  A. 
Froude  has  garnered.  He  has  cast  the  glamour  of  his 
matchless  and  picturesque  style  over  the  spacious  days  of 
Queen  Elizabeth;  and  the  glowing  colours  of  his  canvas, 
boldly  and  broadly  laid  on,  yet  with  the  deft  cunning  of  the 
true  artist,  cannot  but  pale  the  efforts  of  others  to  illustrate 
that  period.  But  the  imagery  and  the  wealth  of  description 
with  which  that  facile  and  graceful  writer  has  clothed  the 
bare  bones  of  history,  have  also  but  too  frequently  carried 
him  away,  and  by  the  mere  force  of  rhetoric  have  betrayed 
him  into  a  false  setting  of  facts  in  his  superb  efforts  to 

1  Gasquet,  Lord  Acton  and  his  Circle,  p.  287. 

2  Ibid.,  p.  164. 

vii 


viii  PREFACE 

secure  the  unities  of  the  picture  he  had  in  his  mind. 
"  The  imagination  is  a  dangerous  faculty  in  an  historian.  It 
is  apt  to  make  rather  than  to  interpret  history."1  This  note 
of  warning,  originally  uttered  against  Ernest  Renan,  is 
applicable  with  a  special  fitness  to  Mr.  Froude.  Neverthe- 
less, the  method  first,  perhaps,  freely  employed  by  Froude, 
must  be  acknowledged  as  the  only  safe  one — that  of  going 
to,  and  quoting,  original  sources.  Sir  Cuthbert  Sharpe  cites 
Lodge's  words,  on  the  title-page  of  his  Memorials  of  the 
Rebellion  of  1569,  that  "  For  genuine  illustration  of  history, 
biography,  and  manners,  we  must  chiefly  rely  on  ancient 
original  papers.  To  them  we  must  turn  for  the  correction 
of  past  errors,  for  a  supply  of  future  materials,  for  proofs  of 
what  hath  already  been  delivered  to  us."  This,  indeed, 
Mr.  Froude  did  copiously,  after  a  fashion  of  his  own,  thereby 
giving  a  superficial  cachet  to  the  picturesque  details  with 
which  he  filled  his  volumes.  But  all  serious  students  of 
Elizabethan  history  have  discovered  that  Mr.  Froude's 
pages  are  dangerous,  because  he  wove  a  fancy  pattern  of 
his  own  on  the  warp  of  facts.  In  this  connection  it  may  be 
permitted  to  refer  to  a  pregnant  passage  in  a  Quarterly  re- 
view on  the  very  work  here  suggesting  these  remarks. 
"  We  have  mentioned  incidentally,"  the  writer  says,  "  one 
cause  of  the  errors  into  which  Mr.  Froude  has  been  led — 
the  reliance  on  the  despatches  of  foreign  ambassadors — to 
which  must  be  added  the  too  great  reference  to  the  des- 
patches of  English  spies  and  agents.  To  write  an  entirely 
fresh  and  independent  history  of  such  a  period  as  this  from 
such  sources,  neglecting  the  works  of  his  predecessors,  even 
though  all  but  contemporary,  as  he  does — for  he  scarcely 
ever  refers  to  the  standard  authorities — is  in  itself  a  perilous 
undertaking.     No  doubt  we  gain  a  vast  amount  of  hitherto 

1  Edinburgh  Review,  April,  1888,  p.  483;  Renan's  History  of  the 
People  of  Israel. 


PREFACE  ix 

unused  material;  Mr.  Froude  deserves  the  thanks  of  all 
future  historians  for  his  extraordinary  industry  in  search- 
ing the  Simancas  archives  and  our  own  for  their  long 
buried  treasures;  but  we  cannot  congratulate  him  on  his 
caution  in  using  them,  nor  give  him  credit  for  having  done 
more  than  supply  materials  for  history.  The  remark  of 
M.  Gauthier  on  this  point  is  just:  '  Qui  voudrait  accepter 
sans  controle  les  nouvelles  envoyees  d'Ecosse  par  les 
agents  Anglais  et  leurs  espions?  Et  qui  ne  sait  que  beau- 
coup  de  pieces  sont  ratur^es  et  interlignees  de  la  main 
meme  de  Cecil?'1 

"  No  people  are  so  frequently  deceived  as  ambassadors, 
agents,  and  spies  in  such  an  age.  Their  pictures  of  what  is 
going  on  around  them  are  often  graphic  and  interesting  to 
the  greatest  degree,  but  they  require  to  be  checked  on  all 
points  touching  politics,  religion,  and  even  as  to  mere  fact. 
They  too  often  see  what  they  wish  to  see,  and  report  what 
they  are  expected  to  report.  But  this  is  not  to  deny  that  they 
can  be  made  most  useful  to  the  historian,  and  they  are 
often  so  in  Mr.  Froude's  hands."2 

The  obvious  corrective  of  this  very  real  danger  pointed 
out  by  Mr.  Froude's  reviewer,  is  to  control  and  check  one 
account  by  another,  if  possible,  from  a  hostile  source ;  and 
this  method  has  been  adopted  as  far  as  was  practicable  in 
the  following  pages. 

Another  difficulty  arises  from  the  fact  that  a  fixed  idea 
has  become  embodied  in  the  national  mind,  that  Elizabeth's 
reign,  as  an  indivisible  whole,  stands  for  all  that  is  glorious 
in  literature,  in  freedom,  in  adventure  (regardless  of  the 
circumstance  that  the  men  who  built  up  England's  mari- 
time greatness  were,  after  all,  little  better  than  pirates).    A 

1  "  Avant  Propos,"  p.  vi,  of  M.  Jules  Gauthier's  Histoire  de  Marie 
Stuart,  Paris,  1869. 

2  April,  1870,  Review  of  Froude's  Queen  Elizabeth,  pp.  541-2. 


x  PREFACE 

Quarterly  review  on  Macaulay  neatly  sums  up  the  diffi- 
culties created  by  this  spirit  of  national  optimism,  excellent 
though  it  be  in  itself.  "  Examination  of  evidence  in  a 
critical  spirit  is  to  most  persons  repulsive,  and  it  is  always 
difficult  to  undertake  the  support  of  reasoned  truth  against 
eloquent  sentiment.  We  have,  moreover,  to  contend  in  the 
present  case,  not  only  against  the  vulgi  indiligentia  veri 
— the  dislike  which  the  majority  always  feel  to  the  investi- 
gation of  truth — but  against  established  admiration,  which 
in  many  minds  rises  to  something  like  religious  sentiment."1 
The  late  Lord  Acton,  well  aware  of  this,  once  wrote: 
"  There  are  two  things  which  cannot  be  attacked  in  front : 
ignorance  and  narrow-mindedness.  They  can  only  be 
shaken  by  the  simple  development  of  the  contrary  qual- 
ities";2 and  he  rightly  condemned  "  men  who  study  not  to 
find  out  truths,  but  to  find  out  proofs  of  what  they  already 
believe  to  be  truths."3  Such  a  spirit  is  fatal  to  arriving  at 
just  conclusions;  and  I  have  had  frequent  cause  to  ac- 
knowledge the  justice  of  Lord  Acton's  strictures,  finding 
that,  notwithstanding  the  Quarterly  reviewer's  censure  of 
Froude's  neglect  of  "  all  but  contemporary "  historians, 
they  practically  rule  out  of  court  most  of  the  "  standard 
authorities  "  previous  to  the  nineteenth  century,  and  that 
yet  another  of  his  sage  remarks  corroborates  this  apparently 
sweeping  condemnation.  "  There  is  as  great  a  difference 
between  history  now  and  in  Gibbon's  time,"  he  wrote, 
"  as  between  the  astronomy  before  Copernicus  and  after 
him."4 

Truth,  the  daughter  of  Time,  must,  in  the  end,  prevail ; 
but  it  is  up-hill  and  well-nigh  disheartening  work  to  reach 
that  plateau  whence  the  whole  landscape  may  be  embraced 

1  April,  1868,  p.  288. 

2  Lord  Acton  and  his  Circle ',  p.  169. 

3  Ibid.  4  Ibid.,  p.  193. 


PREFACE  xi 

in  one  view,  setting  the  component  parts  of  the  picture  in 
due  correlation  with  one  another.  Hence,  in  a  study  of 
any  one  period  of  history  or  of  a  particular  phase  of  a 
period,  the  facts  "  should  be  viewed  as  a  whole  and 
broadly,  and  .  .  .  conclusions  should  be  derived,  not  from 
isolated  allusions,  but  from  the  general  impression  which 
the  entire  history  conveys."1  It  is  a  want  of  appreciation 
of  this  sound  principle  which  has  led  astray  more  than  one 
modern  student  of  this  very  period,  and  which  has  deter- 
mined me  to  let  facts  speak  for  themselves,  and  to  confine 
myself  to  as  little  comment  as  might  be — in  fact,  only  suffi- 
cient to  give  coherence  to  the  narrative.  Controversy  I 
have  studiously  avoided,  preferring  that  the  actors  in  the 
religious  changes  of  the  period  should  themselves  inform 
us  of  what  they  did,  what  they  thought,  what  they  desired. 
Comment  in  such  circumstances  is  not  only  needless,  it  is 
impertinent  in  both  senses  of  the  word. 

The  facts  and  figures  adduced  throughout  the  following 
pages  show  what  measure  of  reliance  can  be  placed  on  such 
broad  statements  as  that  of  Bishop  Mandell  Creighton,  that 
"  in  England  generally  the  [Elizabethan]  religious  settle- 
ment was  welcomed  by  the  people  and  corresponded  to 
their  wishes."    As  in  the  case  of  the  clergy,  so  in  that  of  the 
laity,   while   some  without   doubt   heartily  embraced   the 
change  of  religion,  the  majority  of  them  were  not  favour-      / 
able  to  it,  but  acquiesced  outwardly  for  the  sake  of  peace,^*^ 
not  fully  understanding  the  details  of  the  differences  be- 
tween   Protestantism    and    Catholicism.    To   that   extent 
Bishop  Creighton  was  correct  in  saying  that  "  the  English 
were  not  greatly  interested  in  theological  questions."    But 
the  number  of  earnest  believers  in,  even  supporters  of,  the  ,    / 
Faith  of  their  fathers,  was,  as  the  following  pages  amply 

1  Edinburgh  Review,  April,  1888,  p.  487;  Renan;s  History  of  the 
People  of  Israel. 


xii  PREFACE 

prove,  much  larger  and  more  dogged  than  it  has  been  cus- 
tomary hitherto  to  realise  or  admit. 

A  few  words  only  of  personal  explanation  seem  to  be 
called  for  to  inform  the  reader  how  this  book  came  into 
being,  and  for  what  purpose.  It  has  grown  imperceptibly 
out  of  a  series  of  circumstances.  Some  ten  or  eleven  years 
ago,  I  undertook  to  index  a  mass  of  loose  papers,  extracts 
from  various  manuscript  sources  made  by  the  late  Richard 
Simpson,  Esq.,  during  his  Elizabethan  studies  preparatory 
to  writing  his  admirable  Edmund  Campion.  This  directed 
my  attention  to  the  value  of  these  papers;  but  as  Mr. 
Simpson's  work  extended  mostly  from  1580  onwards,  I 
determined,  under  Abbot  Gasquet's  advice,  to  make  a 
similar  collection  for  the  earlier  half  of  Elizabeth's  reign, 
up  to  1580.  This  task  of  mere  transcription  from  original 
documents  resulted  in  some  four  or  five  years  of  assiduous 
work,  which  taught  me  much  of  the  actualities  of  things,  of 
which  I  had  previously  had  but  a  dim  conception,  formed 
from  the  usual  printed  sources  of  information.  There  then 
came  into  my  hands,  amongst  others,  two  books  in  particu- 
lar, recently  published;  Dr.  Mandell  Creighton's  Elizabeth 
and  Rev.  H.  Gee's  The  Elizabethan  Clergy,  15 58-1 564, 
which  ran  counter  so  completely  to  my  own  growing  con- 
victions, that  I  determined  to  set  forth  the  facts  as  the 
original  documents  had  presented  them  to  me.  It  was  only 
when  a  huge  mass  of  papers,  gathered  from  widely  scattered 
sources,  came  to  be  dovetailed  together,  that  the  true  con- 
clusion from  the  facts  grew  on  my  mind  and  at  last  took 
definite  shape.  I  started  to  write  with  no  preconceived 
notion  of  proving  a  thesis  already  held.  But  the  very 
fitness  of  things  seemed  to  require  an  explanation  wholly 
wanting  in  books  of  the  nature  referred  to,  yet  which  was 
adequately  supplied  in  the  papers  here  presented  in  sub- 
stance or  in  outline  to  the  reader. 


PREFACE  xiii 

I  do  not  suppose  for  one  instant  that  I  shall  be  fortunate 
enough  to  produce  material  hitherto  unknown  to  serious 
students  of  Elizabethan  history ;  this  book  is  not  meant  so 
much  for  persons  accustomed  to  study  original  sources  for 
themselves,  as  it  is  intended  to  help  the  ordinary  reader 
with  no  opportunities  of  diving  below  the  surface,  and  who 
must  therefore  be  content  to  accept  the  conclusions  of 
others.  And  in  the  domain  of  history,  especially,  it  is  so 
often  the  case  that  a  judgment  is  pronounced,  and  the 
student  is  constrained  to  follow  it  without  the  possibility 
being  open  to  him  in  most  cases  of  verification  or  control. 
Moreover,  in  general  histories,  isolated  events  or  phases 
must  be  treated  broadly,  and  the  happenings  of  months  or 
years  are  dismissed  in  a  few  words  or  sentences.  But  when 
a  particular  series  of  events  or  a  special  period  is  singled 
out  for  separate  treatment,  details  can  be  set  out  more 
fully,  and  judgments  can  in  consequence  be  more  matured 
through  the  full  presentment  of  contemporary  document- 
ary evidence.  This  has  been  the  purpose  actuating  the 
following  pages.  The  student  is  enabled  to  read  for  himself 
the  very  words  and  sentiments  of  the  people  whose  actions 
have  had  such  a  momentous  influence  on  the  religious  life 
of  England,  and  can  form  his  own  judgment.  To  render 
the  task  as  easy  as  possible,  while  the  diction  has  been 
left  untouched,  the  orthography  has  been  modernised 
throughout. 

In  conclusion,  I  have  to  express  my  deep  obligations  to 
Abbot  Gasquet  for  valuable  advice  at  every  stage  of  my 
long  task:  what  that  advice  has  meant  to  me,  his  reputa- 
tion as  an  historical  student  sufficiently  testifies. 

Henry  Norbert  Birt,  O.S.B. 

1st  August,  1907. 


THE  ELIZABETHAN 
RELIGIOUS   SETTLEMENT 

CHAPTER  I 

ELIZABETH'S  ACCESSION  AND  THE  FIRST  MONTHS  OF 
HER  REIGN 

THE  genealogy  of  Queen  Elizabeth  is  too  well  known 
to  need  rehearsal  in  this  place.  At  the  same  time  it 
should  be  borne  in  mind  that  a  subservient  Parliament  had 
placed  the  disposal  of  the  royal  crown  completely  in 
Henry  VI IPs  hands.1  The  astute  Archbishop  Cranmer, 
who  had  pronounced  Henry's  marriage  with  Catherine  of 
Aragon  null  and  void,  after  having  secretly  united  Henry 
with  Anne  Boleyn,  was  equally  prepared  to  declare  that 
this  union  had  no  sanction  either  by  divine  or  ecclesiastical 
law.  This  declaration  nullified  what  had  been  at  best  but 
a  doubtful  legitimacy  as  regards  the  Princess  Elizabeth, 
the  fruit  of  that  ill-starred  union.  It  is  a  fact  not  without 
significance  that  Elizabeth  would  never  have  the  question 
raised,  at  least  in  a  definite  form,  and  so  settled,  by 
Parliament :  she  preferred  to  let  her  origin  pass  into  oblivion, 
not  wishing  to  arouse  unpleasant  memories  about  her 
mother,  to  whom  she  never  referred.  In  this  she  offered  a 
marked  contrast  to  the  solicitude  exhibited  by  Queen 
Mary  to  vindicate  the  honour  of  her  mother  Catherine.2 

1  35  Hen.  VIII,  c.  i. 

2  "  In  this  Parliament  [the  first  of  Elizabeth]  there  passed  an  act 
for  recognising  the  Queen's  just  title  to  the  Crown,  but  without  any 
act  for  the  validity  of  her  mother's  marriage,  on  which  her  title  most 
depended.  For  which  neglect  most  men  condemned  the  new  Lord 
Keeper  [Sir  Nicholas  Bacon],  on  whose  judgment  she  relied  especially 

B 


2         ELIZABETH'S  ACCESSION  AND  THE 

"  The  two  Houses  of  Parliament,"  wrote  Nicholas  Sander, 
"  in  the  first  year  of  the  reign  of  Queen  Mary,1  declared  the 
marriage  of  Henry  and  Catherine  valid,  and  the  issue 
thereof,  by  human  and  divine  law,  to  have  been  born  in 
lawful  wedlock;  repealing  at  the  same  time  all  Acts,  pro- 
cesses, and  sentences  to  the  contrary.  The  marriage  of 
Anne,  therefore — for  Catherine  was  still  living — could  not 
be  valid,  and  her  issue  .  .  .  was  incapable,  naturally,  of 
succeeding  in  any  way  according  to  the  .  .  .  law,  .  .  .  and 
to  this  day 2  this  law  has  not  been  repealed  even  by  Eliza- 
beth herself.  She,  it  is  true,  claimed  the  throne  as  her 
right,  and  willed  that  everybody  should  acknowledge  her 
right  in  her  first  Parliament,  but  she  never  grounded  her 
right  upon  anything  else  than  on  the  power  of  Parliament; 
she  never  claimed  the  crown  as  her  birthright.  Care  was 
taken  afterwards  to  make  it  a  capital  offence  to  deny  the 
right  of  the  King  and  the  estates  of  the  realm  to  give  the 
kingdom  to  whom  they  pleased.3  No  word  was  ever  uttered 
for  the  purpose  of  making  her  legitimate,  or  clearing  away 
the  taint  of  her  birth;  on  that  point  the  silence  was  com- 
plete." 4  Parliament  had,  however,  granted  the  disposal  of 
the  Crown  to  the  King,  who  in  pursuance  of  this  Act5 
arranged  for  the  succession  of  Mary  and  Elizabeth  to  the 
throne,  failing  lawful  heirs  either  to  himself  or  his  son 
Edward.  These  facts  need  to  be  borne  in  mind  in  order 
properly  to  appreciate  the  terms  in  which  Elizabeth  an- 

in  point  of  law ;  in  whom  it  could  not  but  be  looked  on  as  a  great 
incogitancy,  to  be  less  careful  of  her  own  and  her  mother's  honour, 
than  the  ministers  of  the  late  Queen  Mary  had  been  of  hers  .  .  .  pos- 
sible it  is  that  he  conceived  it  better  for  the  marriage  of  the  Queen's 
mother  to  pass  unquestioned,  as  a  matter  justly  subject  unto  no  dis- 
pute, than  to  build  the  validity  of  it  on  no  better  ground  than  an  Act 
of  Parliament,  which  might  be  as  easily  reversed  as  it  was  agreed  to." 
— Heylin,  Hist.  Reform.,  iii,  p.  107. 

1  I.e.,  in  the  second  session  of  Parliament,  but  in  the  first  regnal 
year,  1  Mariae,  c.  1. 

2  I.e.,  1585.  3  13  Eliz.,  c.  1. 
4  Sander,  Anglican  Schism,  ed.  1877,  ch.  ii,  pp.  230-1. 

s  35  Hen.  VIII,  c.  1. 


FIRST  MONTHS  OF  HER  REIGN  3 

nounced  to  Philip  II,  King  of  Spain,  the  husband  of  her 
deceased  sister  and  predecessor,  and  her  own  brother-in- 
law,  her  accession  to  the  throne  of  England,  as  its  lawful 
heir.  Five  days  after  her  actual  accession  and  proclama- 
tion, writing  from  Hatfield,  she  informed  her  royal  kins- 
man, "  by  the  singular  mercy  of  God,  and  by  the  consent 
and  approval  of  all  ranks,  and  to  the  entire  joy  of  her 
subjects,  that  the  kingdom  and  dominion  of  England  had 
devolved  on  her,  as  being  the  undoubted  and  most  legi- 
timate sole  heiress  by  highest  right  of  her  most  dear  father 
of  happy  memory,  Henry  VIII."1  Moreover,  writing  to 
the  English  Commissioners  treating  with  the  French  for 
peace  at  Cateau  Cambresis,  to  announce  her  accession  and 
to  renew  their  powers,  Elizabeth  used  the  expression: 
"  whereby,  as  thereof  ye  be  not  ignorant,  the  Crown  of  this 
Realm  is  by  natural  blood  and  lawful  succession  descended 
unto  us  as  to  the  only  right  heir  thereof."2 

The  wording  of  these  announcements  may  be  commended 
for  their  cleverness  in  joining  in  one  the  ideas  of  lawful 
succession  and  of  descent  by  blood.  But,  as  Parliament  had 
conferred  on  Henry  a  statutory  power  of  settling  the  suc- 
cession, there  was  no  call  to  bring  into  question  the  taint  of 
blood.  Accordingly,  immediately  on  Queen  Mary's  demise, 
Lords  and  Commons  met,  and  the  Lord  Chancellor,  Nicholas 
Heath,  Archbishop  of  York,  proclaimed  Elizabeth  as 
Queen  by  undoubted  right. 

Elizabeth's  religious  leani 
most  intimately  brought  into  contact  with  her;  few  were 
deceived   by  her  shallow  compliance  with  Queen   Mary's 

1  The  letter,  preserved  in  the  Simancas  Archives,  is  in  Latin.  The 
exact  words  are  as  follow:  "Exponet  Vestrae  Serenitati  hie  noster 
nuntius  quam  singulari  Dei  benignitate,  et  quam  consentiente  omnium 
ordinum  voluntate  et  applausu,  tranquillo  etiam  et  omni  laeto  omnium 
subditorum  nostrorum  haec  regna  et  dominia  nostra  ad  nos  tanquam 
ad  praecharissimi  patris  nostri  felicis  memoriae  Henrici  Octavi  in- 
dubitatissimam  et  maxime  legitimam  unicam  haeredem  jure  optimo 
devoluta  sunt "  {Collection  de  Chrom'oues  Beiges  ine'dites,  Doc.  CCXXXI, 
i,  p.  299). 

2  P.R.O.,  Foreign,  Eliz.,  I,  No.  22;  23rd  November,  1558. 


4         ELIZABETH'S  ACCESSION  AND  THE 

desire  that  she  should  conform  in  all  things  to  the  usages 
of  the  Catholic  Church.  Thus,  on  the  25th  of  November, 
1558,  Christophe  d'Assonleville  wrote  to  his  royal  master, 
King  Philip,  from  Westminster,  that  though  no  change  was 
hitherto  apparent  in  one  short  week  since  Elizabeth's  acces- 
sion, yet  that  already  indications  were  not  wanting  to  show 
in  what  direction  her  leanings  lay,  and  how  matters  would 
eventually  shape  themselves.  "  The  said  Queen  at  once 
made  proclamation  of  the  protection  due  to  the  people  as 
from  their  natural  and  legitimate  Queen,  directing  in  general 
terms  that  the  orders  and  customs  at  present  observed  in 
the  kingdom  should  in  no  way  whatever  be  disturbed, 
changed,  or  altered,  under  penalty  of  her  displeasure,  and 
of  incurring  severe  punishment  according  to  the  exigency 
of  the  case.  This  is  well-timed  to  repress  the  novelties 
which  already  some  wish  to  introduce  into  the  churches. 

"  The  Queen  that  now  is,  since  the  death  of  Queen  Mary, 
has  so  far  continued  to  hear  Mass  and  Vespers,  as  she  used 
formerly  to  do.  One  thing  to  be  noticed,  however,  is  that 
many  of  her  new  councillors  and  officers  are  suspected  of 
sectarianism  [de  la  secte\  and  are,  for  the  most  part,  of  the 
number  of  those  who  served  King  Edward;  add  to  this 
that  the  Londoners  hope  much  for  change.  I  have  learnt 
from  someone  who  is  in  a  position  to  know  [qui  entend  une 
partie  des  affaires']  that  it  is  her  intention  to  settle  religion 
as  it  was  eight  years  before  the  death  of  King  Henry,  when 
the  forms  of  the  ancient  religion  were  followed  except  as 
regards  the  power  of  the  Pope,  and  what  is  connected  with 
that.  Should  any  great  change  be  effected,  it  would  only 
be  with  grave  danger  of  a  rising  among  the  people,  namely 
those  of  the  North  and  in  Cornwall,  who  are  still  stout 
[dons]  for  the  Catholic  Faith." '  In  the  same  letter  he 
indicated  that  it  would  be  easy  to  guess  the  trend  of  events 
in  the  choice  Elizabeth  should  make  for  her  Chancellor 
and  for  Cardinal  Pole's  successor  in  the  See  of  Canterbury, 
that  distinguished  prelate  having  died  but  a  few  hours  after 
Queen  Mary.  D'Assonleville  accompanied  this  letter  with 
1  Chron.  Belg.,  No.  ccxxxvn,  i,  p.  313. 


FIRST  MONTHS  OF  HER  REIGN  5 

a  special  paper  or  enclosure  giving  an  account  of  the  death 
of  Mary  and  the  accession  of  Elizabeth,  from  which  it  will 
be  appropriate  to  make  some  extracts,  as  the  minuteness 
of  the  details  shows  that  the  Ambassador  was  well  in- 
formed. His  narrative,  moreover,  preserves  otherwise  un- 
recorded particulars. 

Mary  had  been  taken  ill  in  the  Palace  of  St.  James's  on 
17th  August,  1558,  so  that  her  malady,  the  latter  stages  of 
which  pointed  to  certain  death,  gave  plenty  of  time  to 
Elizabeth's  partisans  to  perfect  their  dispositions  for  her 
unopposed  accession.  Mary  prepared  for  death  most 
piously,  communicating  on  several  of  the  Sundays  during 
the  three  months  that  her  illness  lasted,  and  received  the 
Last  Sacraments  on  Sunday,  13th  November.  On  Tues- 
day the  15th,  she  was  seized  with  faintness,  but,  though  all 
her  attendants  thought  the  end  had  come,  she  rallied.  On 
Thursday  the  17th,  she  assisted  at  Mass  said  in  her  bed- 
chamber, and  then,  before  6  a.m.,1  her  soul  passed  from 
this  world,  and  her  end  was  in  keeping  with  her  personally 
saintly  life. 

Two  hours  later  Elizabeth  was  proclaimed  Queen  by  the 
Lords  of  the  Council,  who  repaired  for  the  purpose  to 
Westminster,  where  the  Parliament  was  in  session.  This 
formality  was  repeated  in  Cheapside  in  presence  of  the 
Mayor  and  Aldermen  of  the  City  of  London.  D'Assonle- 
ville  comments  with  some  asperity  on  the  rejoicings  in- 
dulged in  on  the  occasion  by  the  citizens ;  for  it  struck 
him  that  there  was  a  certain  indecency  in  such  manifesta- 
tions of  joy  at  the  proclamation  of  a  new  Sovereign  on  the 
very  day  of  Mary's  demise.2 

The  French  were  disposed  to  dispute  Elizabeth's  right/ 
to  the  throne,  and  Lord  Cobham,  one  of  the  English  com- 

1  Lingard  says  "about  noon"  {Hist,  of  Engl.,  ed.  1825,  vi,  p.  342). 

2  "  Ce  mesme  jour  au  soir  furent  faicts  par  toute  la  ville  de  grands 
feu  et  recreations,  comme  Ton  dit  estre  la  maniere  accoutumee  le  jour 
de  la  proclamation:  chose  toutefois  qui  sembleroit  plus  decente  en 
aultre  temps  que  au  mesme  jour  de  la  mort  de  leur  prince." — Chron. 
Belg.,  No.  ccxxxvn,  i,  p.  312,  25th  November,  1558. 


6  ELIZABETH'S  ACCESSION  AND  THE 

missioners  treating  for  peace  with  France  at  Cercamp, 
wrote  to  inform  Elizabeth  that  they  "did  not  let  to  say 
and  to  talk  openly  how  your  Highness  is  not  lawful  Queen 
of  England  and  that  they  have  already  sent  to  Rome  to 
disprove  your  Majesty's  right."  l  This  disposition  to  ques- 
tion her  right  to  the  throne  took  a  more  serious  turn  when 
it  began  to  affect  the  peace  negotiations  themselves,  in- 
cluding the  vexed  subject  of  the  restoration  of  Calais. 
Bishop  Tunstall  and  his  fellow  commissioners  reported 
that,  on  a  request  for  the  re-delivery  of  that  town,  the 
French  commissioners  retorted :  "  Put  the  case  that  Calais 
were  to  be  re-delivered  and  that  we  did  owe  such  debt  to 
the  Crown  of  England.  To  whom  shall  we  re-deliver 
Calais?  To  whom  shall  we  pay  the  debt?  Is  not  the 
Queen  of  Scots  true  Queen  of  England?  Shall  we  deliver 
Calais  and  those  debts  to  another,  and  thereby  prejudice 
the  right  of  the  Queen  of  Scots  and  of  the  Dauphin  her 
husband?"2  It  may  readily  be  imagined  how  galling  this 
questioning  of  her  right  would  be  to  Elizabeth.  Nor  was 
she  slow  in  letting  the  English  envoys  know  her  mind  on 
the  subject,  for  she  roundly  told  them  they  were  sadly 
bungling  their  business.  She  had  "  great  cause  ...  to 
mislike  certain  matters  that  touch  our  estate  too  nigh  .  .  . 
neither  we  may,  nor  ever  will,  permit  any  over  whom  we 
have  rule,  or  may  have,  to  make  doubt,  question  or  treaty 
of  this  matter  ...  we  like  not  the  matter  as  it  is  handled."  * 
Instead  of  upholding  Elizabeth's  honour,  her  commis- 
sioners had  met  the  French  objections  very  lamely,  sug- 
gesting, in  effect,  that  the  Crown  or  nation  might  be 
accounted  the  debtor,  and  that  the  question  of  the  rightful 
wearer  and  ruler  thereof  might  stand  over  for  future  dis- 
cussion, on  the  plea  that  at  the  moment  they  were  not  pre- 
pared to  meet  the  French  objections  on  that  score.    Nor 

1  Chron.  Belg.,  No.  ccni,  i,  p.  332;  P.R.O.,  Foreign,  Eliz.,  1,  No.  82, 
13th  December,  1558. 

-  Ibid.,  No.  cccvn,  i,  p.  455,  2nd  March,  1558-9. 

3  Ibid.,  No.  cccxn,  i,  p.  460,  7th  March,  1558-9;  P.R.O.,  Foreign, 
Eliz.,  Nos.  390-392. 


FIRST  MONTHS  OF  HER  REIGN  7 

did  it  add  to  the  Queen's  sense  of  security  to  be  told  by 
her  commissioners  that  "the  French  labour  at  Rome  to 
the  Pope  for  the  disabling  of  your  Highness  to  the  Crown, 
and  entitling  of  the  Queen  of  Scots  thereunto." '  Without 
a  moment's  delay  Sir  John  Mason  was  hurried  off  to 
Cateau  Cambresis  "to  show  them  how  much  we  mislike 
their  doings,"  and,  as  the  envoy-extraordinary's  instruc- 
tions expressed  it,  "  will  you  not  to  fail  but  plainly  declare 
to  them  how  much  this  annoyeth  us."2  A  more  serious 
personal  reflection  on  their  own  loyalty  was  contained  in 
those  words  of  the  document  referred  to,  in  which  Elizabeth 
said  she  could  "not  tell  how  interpret  their  meaning, 
first  to  suffer  such  words  with  patience,  and  next  to  make 
a  doubt  of  it  themselves."  Sir  John  Mason  was  henceforth 
to  be  joined  with  them  in  their  commission,  to  watch  and 
report  their  proceedings,  and  to  stiffen  their  loyalty. 

The  English  envoys  had  referred  to  French  intrigues  at 
Rome  to  secure  the  Pope's  influence  on  behalf  of  the  Queen 
of  Scots  as  against  Elizabeth.  It  is  necessary,  therefore,  to 
enquire  here  more  fully  into  Paul  IV's  attitude  towards 
Queen  Elizabeth  at  the  time  of  her  accession,  since  it  has 
been  customary  hitherto  to  represent  the  Supreme  Pontiff 
as  refusing  to  acknowledge  Elizabeth's  legitimacy,  and,  as 
a  necessary  consequence,  thus  driving  her,  in  sheer  self- 
defence,  into  a  breach  with  Rome.  That  this  view  is  riot 
in  accordance  with  the  actual  facts  may  be  realised  by 
referring  to  a  letter  in  the  Hatfield  Papers.3 

Queen  Mary's  ambassador  at  the  Papal  Court  was,  at 
the  time  of  her  death,  Sir  Edward  Carne,  who  continued  to 
act  in  the  same  capacity  for  Elizabeth  during  a  very  short 
period  after  her  accession;  and,  in  the  fulfilment  of  his 
functions,  he  forwarded  to  her  certain  despatches,  still 
extant.1 

1  Chroti.  Belg.,  No.  CCCVli,  i,  p.  455,  2nd  March,  1558-9. 

2  Ibid.,  No.  cccxi,  i,  p.  459,  7th  March,  1558-9. 

3  I,  p.  182. 

4  "Whereas  the  late  Queen  had  an  old  civilian,  viz.,  Sir  Edward 
Carne,  resident  at  the  Court  of  Rome,"  so  wrote  Strype,  "  the  present 


8         ELIZABETH'S  ACCESSION  AND  THE 

Amongst  these  is  one  dated  \6th  February,  1559.  The 
fixing  of  this  date  is  of  importance  in  the  present  enquiry. 
At  the  period  under  discussion  the  modern  system  of 
reckoning  the  year  as  commencing  on  1st  January  had 
already  been  adopted  on  the  continent,  but  not  in  Eng- 
land, where  the  mediaeval  style  still  prevailed  of  making 
the  new  year  begin  on  Lady  Day,  25th  March.  Between 
1st  January  and  25th  March,  therefore,  a  document  maybe 
ascribed  to  two  different  years  according  to  the  "  style  " 
adopted.  Hence  the  date  \6th  February,  1559,  as  we 
should  calculate  nowadays,  and  as  it  was  at  that  period 
calculated  in  Rome,  was  nevertheless  then  reckoned  in 
England  as  belonging  to  1558;  or  if  due  caution  were  not 
observed,  a  modern  historian  might  take  the  date  16th 
February,  1559,  as  it  was  employed  by  Sir  Edward  Carne, 
writing  from  Rome,  in  the  Roman  and  modern  style,  but 
calculating  it  according  to  the  prevailing  Tudor  custom, 
might  describe  it  as  equivalent  to  1560.  Precisely  this 
mistake  was  made  in  calendaring  Sir  Edward  Carne's  des- 
patch when  the  Hatfield  Papers  were  published.  But  the 
internal  evidence  of  the  letter  itself  shows  that  the  terms  of 

Queen  intending  to  have  little  correspondence  with  that  Roman  pre- 
late, gave  him  a  check  very  early,  not  to  meddle  in  the  transferring  of 
any  causes  within  her  dominions  to  that  Court.  And  there  being  now 
a  controversy  about  a  matter  of  matrimony  ...  a  letter  was  despatched 
to  him  from  her  Council,  requiring  him,  that  forasmuch  as  he  was 
heretofore  placed  there  as  a  public  person  by  reason  of  his  embassade, 
he  should  therefore  from  henceforth  forbear  to  use  his  authority  in 
soliciting  or  procuring  of  anything  in  the  said  business  (cf.  Acts  of  the 
Privy  Council,  vii,  p.  11,  1st  December,  1558).  And  so  he  abode  there 
privately  till  February  following  (1558-9),  when  it  was  signified  unto 
him  by  the  Council,  that  the  Queen  was  pleased,  in  consideration 
there  was  no  further  cause  why  he  should  make  any  longer  abode 
there,  to  command  that  he  put  himself  in  order  to  return  home,  at 
such  time  and  with  such  speed  as  he  should  think  most  meet.  But 
March  ult.  (31st,  1559),  the  Pope  .  .  .  required  this  knight  .  .  .  under 
pain  of  .  .  .  excommunication,  and  forfeiture  of  all  his  goods,  that 
he  should  not  stir  out  of  the  City  of  Rome,  and  take  upon  him 
the  English  Hospital  near  St.  Jerome's  Church  (cf.  Strype,  Ann., 
i.P-35). 


FIRST  MONTHS  OF  HER  REIGN  9 

reference  were  to  the  French  intrigues  that  were  being 
pushed  forward  in  the  early  part  of  1559,  not  to  anything 
belonging  to  the  year  1560,  as  calendared.  Out  of  its 
proper  setting  its  importance  has  perhaps  hitherto  been 
overlooked ;  restored  to  its  proper  place  in  its  relation  to 
the  sequence  and  interdependence  of  events,  it  assumes  a 
character  of  considerable  consequence  as  throwing  a  truer 
and  clearer  light  upon  what  really  took  place.  By  1560  the 
breach  with  Rome  had  been  so  fully  effected  that  the 
attitude  of  the  Pope  towards  Elizabeth  had  ceased  to  bear 
any  relation  to  events  in  England,  and  could  be,  as  it 
mainly  was,  disregarded.  Early  in  1559,  however,  it  had 
still  to  be  reckoned  with.  Sir  Edward  Carne,  then,  repeat- 
ing news  sent  by  him  on  9th  and  nth  February,  1558-9, 
further  informed  the  Queen  on  16th  February  following: 
"...  that  the  French  here  can  obtain  nothing  at  his 
Holiness'  hands  against  your  Majesty;  and  that  his 
Holiness  hath  such  respect  to  your  Majesty  and  to  your 
realms,  that  he  will  attempt  nothing  against  your  realms, 
unless  the  occasion  be  given  first  thence,  as  I  am  credibly 
informed.  One  of  the  Cardinals  that  is  greatest  with  his 
Holiness  showed  me  that  he  and  others,  that  be  chief  with 
his  Holiness,  do  mind  to  move  his  Holiness  to  send  his 
Nuncio  to  your  Majesty  thither,  but  that  they  stay  till 
your  Majesty  do  send  hither  first  to  his  Holiness ;  whereof 
I  thought  good  to  advertise  your  Majesty.  .  .  ."  From  this 
despatch  it  is  clear  that  no  opposition  was  then  being 
offered  by  the  Pope  to  Elizabeth's  accession ;  that  the  in- 
trigues of  the  French  as  reported  by  the  envoys  at  Cer- 
camp  had  a  real  existence,  but  had  hitherto  failed  of  their 
purpose;  that  Paul  IV  was  ready  to  acknowledge  Eliza- 
beth in  due  course  after  she  had  observed  the  formality  of 
notifying  her  accession  officially  to  him.  The  discourteous 
withholding  of  this  customary  formality  was  the  first  in- 
dication that  opened  the  eyes  of  the  Court  of  Rome  to  the 
possibility  of  a  renewal  of  Henry  VIII's  schism.  The 
possibility  soon  appeared  to  be  an  imminent  probability, 
and  Sir  Edward  Carne,  writing  from  Rome  on   1st  April, 


io       ELIZABETH'S  ACCESSION  AND  THE 

1559/  made  it  plain  that  the  Curia  was  growing  restive 
under  the  hostile  attitude  Elizabeth  was  assuming,  and  at 
the  evident  trend  of  the  religious  policy  of  the  Queen,  her 
ministers,  and  Parliament.  The  story  of  how  Sir  Edward 
Carne  secured  that,  though  recalled,  he  should  not  be  per- 
mitted to  leave  Rome,  does  not  belong  to  this  subject;  but 
it  is  clear  that  about  that  date  the  "  practisings  "  of  the 
French  were  beginning  to  take  effect,  and  that  the  Pope 
was  being  prevailed  upon  to  look  into  the  question  of 
Elizabeth's  title  to  the  throne.  In  an  abstract  of  various 
letters2  under  date  of  3rd  [or  5th]  April,  1559,  is  one  from 
the  former  Roman  Ambassador,  thus  epitomised :  "  Sir 
Edward  Carne,  revoked  by  the  Queen,  could  neither  get 
access  to  the  Pope,  or  leave  to  depart,  because  the  Pope 
understood  that  the  Queen  of  England  was  revolted  from 
the  obedience  of  that  See.  And  therefore  by  Bernardinus 
Cardinal  of  St.  Matthew  he  is  commanded  from  the  Pope 
upon  penalty  of  excommunication  that  he  is  not  to  depart, 
assigning  him  the  government  of  the  Hospital  of  the  Eng- 
lish nation  for  his  maintenance.  And  he perceiveth  that  the 
French  had  attained  somewhat  of  their  purpose  the  month 
before,  but  in  what  particular  he  cannot  learn." 3 

1  Cotton  MSS.   Galba  B.  vi,  No.  5,  f.  9. 

2  Ibid.   Caligula  B.  ix,  No.  86,  f.  203. 

3  Cf.  Strype  {Annals,  i,  p.  35),  who  records  Sir  E.  Carrie's  death  on 
1 8th  January,  1560,  and  his  burial  in  the  church  of  St.  Gregory  on  the 
Coelian  Hill;  but  his  monumental  inscription  as  given  by  Strype 
makes  out  that  he  died  in  1561. 

It  will  be  noticed  that  the  foregoing  account  differs  from  that  given 
by  Lingard,  or  by  Canon  Tierney,  in  his  edition  of  Dodd's  History. 
They,  relying  upon  Sarpi,  Pallavicino,  and  other  foreign  writers,  state 
that  Came  was  ordered  to  notify  the  Pontiff  of  Elizabeth's  accession, 
but  that  Paul  IV,  persuaded  by  the  statements  of  the  French  ambas- 
sador, had  replied  "  that  he  was  unable  to  comprehend  the  hereditary 
right  of  one  who  was  not  born  in  lawful  wedlock ;  that  the  Queen 
of  Scots  claimed  the  Crown  as  the  nearest  legitimate  descendant  of 
Henry  VII ;  but  that  if  Elizabeth  were  willing  to  submit  the  contro- 
versy to  his  arbitration,  she  should  receive  from  him  every  indulgence 
which  justice  could  allow  "  (Hist,  of  Engl.,  vi,  p.  347).  It  appears  that, 
later,  both  Lingard  and  Tierney  acknowledged  that  they  had  been 


FIRST  MONTHS  OF  HER  REIGN  u 

Meanwhile  Elizabeth  herself  was  proceeding  with  ex- 
treme caution.  It  has  always  been  a  matter  of  difficulty  to 
determine  what  was  exactly  her  own  religious  standpoint. 
Her  conformity,  outwardly  at  least,  to  the  usages  of  the 
Church  of  Rome  during  her  sister's  reign  may  be  dismissed 
at  once  as  mere  policy  to  avert  unpleasantness;  that  she 
was  a  reformer  in  the  sense  that  the  bishops  of  her  creation, 
or  that  Cecil  and  Bacon  were  reformers,  is  equally  un- 
tenable. It  would  seem  that  her  leanings  were  rather  to 
the  side  of  the  Catholics,  but  that  self-interest  determined 
her  to  throw  in  her  lot  with  those  of  the  New  Learning. 
Even  before  her  accession  she  had  given  her  confidence  to 
Sir  William  Cecil,  who  had  been  secretary  to  Edward  VI, 
but  had  had  no  employment  under  Mary,  who  distrusted 
him.  When  Mary's  death  gave  the  throne  to  Elizabeth,  she 
immediately  appointed  Cecil  secretary,  and,  by  the  help  of 

misled  (Cf.  Rambler,  November,  1861,  pp.  124-9).  The  Pope's  bene- 
volent attitude  towards  England  and  the  Queen,  even  at  a  later  date, 
is  shown  by  his  statements  to  an  Englishman,  Thomas  Sackville, 
afterwards  Lord  Buckhurst  and  subsequently  Earl  of  Dorset.  This 
gentleman  was  in  Rome  in  1564,  and  was  there  imprisoned  (P.R.O., 
Foreign,  Eliz.,  lxvii,  No.  92;  29th  January  1563-4,  Cecil  to  Gurone 
Bertrano)  on  suspicion  of  heresy,  but  was  liberated  through  the  good 
offices  of  the  English  exiles  there  in  residence  at  that  time.  He  was  even 
accorded  an  interview  with  the  Pope,  who,  using  him  as  an  informal 
channel  of  communication,  commissioned  him,  on  his  return  to  Eng- 
land, to  bring  to  the  Queen's  knowledge  his,  the  Pope's,  sentiments 
towards  her.  These  leave  nothing  to  be  desired.  The  Pope  showed 
that  he  was  anxious  to  smooth  over  difficulties  of  a  temporal  nature, 
such  as  the  alienation  of  ecclesiastical  property ;  and,  in  a  document 
drawn  up  to  embody  and  attest  his  assurances,  expressed  himself 
thus :  "  If  ever  the  most  serene  Queen  shall  be  willing  to  return  to 
union  with  the  Church  and  the  Obedience  of  this  See,  his  Holiness 
promises  that  he  will  receive  her  with  fatherly  affection  and  with  all 
the  love  that  she  can  desire.  And  as  for  the  above-mentioned  diffi- 
culties, he  will  apply  to  them  such  remedies  as  the  Queen's  Majesty 
and  Parliament  and  the  united  will  of  the  entire  realm  shall  judge 
most  fit  for  the  stability  of  the  throne  and  assurance  of  peace  and 
quiet  of  the  whole  people ;  and  that  in  every  particular  he  will  confirm 
whatever  shall  be  judged  just  and  pious  "  {Cath.  Record  Soc.j  Mis- 
ceila?iea,  ii,  pp.  5-6). 


12       ELIZABETH'S  ACCESSION  AND  THE 

his  advice,  formed  her  council.  The  constitution  of  this 
body  furnished  a  key  to  her  policy.  To  those  of  her  sister's 
council  who  had  gone  to  Hatfield  to  announce  to  her  her 
accession,  she  said  that  she  meant  to  retain  in  her  service 
some  of  those  who  had  been  employed  during  the  last 
three  reigns.  Lingard  says  that  she  added  eight  to  those 
of  the  old  body  whom  she  did  not  dismiss,  and,  following 
Camden,  points  out  that  the  old  element  comprised  staunch 
adherents  of  Rome,  while  those  she  introduced  were  all 
reformers.1  But  this  council  was  not  the  true  ruling  force; 
that  which  really  had  the  ear  of  the  Queen  and  virtually 
controlled  everything  was  an  inner  council  composed  of 
Cecil  and  his  friends — those  whose  names  appear  regularly 
in  the  council  books.2 

1  Hist,  of  Engl.,  vi,  pp.  344-5  ;  Camden,  i,  pp.  26-7. 

2  Edwin  Sandys,  writing  to  Henry  Bullinger  on  20th  December,  1 558, 
told  him  that  "  the  Queen  has  changed  almost  all  her  councillors ;  and 
has  taken  good  Christians  into  her  service  in  the  room  of  Papists" 
(1  Zurich  Letters,  No.  11,  p.  3).  A  note  to  the  above  statement 
may  be  here  reproduced.  "The  Queen's  [Mary's]  councillors  towards 
the  latter  end  of  her  reign  were  those  that  follow;  whereof,  says 
Strype  (Memor.  Ill,  ii,  p.  160),  those  that  have  asterisks  were  laid  aside 
the  next  reign,  as  I  took  them  out  of  a  Journal  of  the  Lord  Burghley's ; 
the  rest  continued  Privy  Councillors  to  Queen  Elizabeth,  viz. : 

♦Reginald,  Cardinal  Pole.  *Edward,   Lord    Hastings    of 
♦Nicholas,  Abp.  of  York,  Lord  Loughborough. 

Chancellor.  *Sir  Thomas  Cornwallis. 

Powlet,  Mqs.  of  Winchester,  *Sir  Francis  Englefield. 

Lord  Treasurer.  *Sir  Edward  Waldegrave. 

Fitzalan,  Earl  of  Arundel.  *Sir  John  Mordaunt. 

Talbot,  Earl  of  Shrewsbury.  Sir  Thomas  Cheyney. 

*Henry,  Earl  of  Bath.  Sir  William  Petre. 

Stanley,  Earl  of  Derby.  Sir  John  Mason. 

Herbert,  Earl  of  Pembroke.  Sir  Richard  Sackville. 

Edward,  Lord  Clynton,  Lord  *Sir  Thomas  Wharton. 

Admiral.  *Sir  John  Brown. 

Lord  Howard  of  Effingham.  *Dr.  Wootton,  Dean  of  Canter- 
#Browne,  Viscount  Montagu.  bury. 

*Thirlby,  Bp.  of  Ely.  *Dr.  Boxall. 

♦William,  Lord  Paget.  *Sir  Henry  Jernegam. 

♦Lord  Wentworth.  #Sir  Henry  Bedingfeld. 

♦Richard,  Lord  Riche.  *Sir  Edmund  Peckham. 


FIRST  MONTHS  OF  HER  REIGN  13 

The  situation  as  it  presented  itself  to  a  keen  observer — 
one,  too,  destined  to  be  a  leader  in  the  work  of  reforma- 
tion, is  not  without  interest.  John  Jewel,  on  his  return  to 
England  from  exile,  thus  depicted  affairs  to  Peter  Martyr 
as  they  were  on  20th  March,  1558-9:  "  The  Roman  Pontiff 
was  not  yet  cast  out;  no  part  of  religion  was  yet  restored; 
the  country  was  still  everywhere  desecrated  with  the  Mass; 
the  pomp  and  insolence  of  the  bishops  was  unabated.  .  .  . 
The  bishops  are  a  great  hindrance  to  us;  for  being,  as  you 
know,  among  the  nobility  and  leading  men  in  the  Upper 
House,  and  having  none  there  on  our  side  to  expose  their 
artifices  and  confute  their  falsehoods,  they  reign  as  sole 
monarchs  in  the  midst  of  ignorant  and  weak  men,  and 
easily  overreach  our  little  party,  either  by  their  numbers, 
or  their  reputation  for  learning.  The  Queen,  meanwhile, 
though  she  openly  favours  our  cause,  yet  is  wonderfully 
afraid  of  allowing  any  innovations:  this  is  owing  partly  to 
her  own  friends,  by  whose  advice  everything  is  carried  on, 
and  partly  to  the  influence  of  Count  Feria,  a  Spaniard,  and 
Philip's  ambassador.  She  is,  however,  prudently,  and 
firmly,  and  piously  following  up  her  purpose,  though  some- 
what more  slowly  than  we  could  wish." 1 

As  a  matter  of  fact,  events  were  shaping  themselves  more 
rapidly  than  Jewel's  impatience  would  lead  the  student  to 
imagine  from  the  wording  of  the  foregoing  letter.  In  order 
to  give  an  appearance  of  legality  to  such  alterations  as  might 
be  determined  upon,  it  had  been  decided  to  do  nothing  till 

*Sir  Robert  Peckham.  *Sir  Clement  Higham. 

*Sir  William  Cordell.  *Sir  Richard  Southwell." 

It  will  be  seen,  therefore,  that  Mary's  Council  contained  thirty-five  mem- 
bers, reduced  to  thirty-four  by  Cardinal  Pole's  death.  Of  these,  eleven 
only  were  retained,  while  twenty-three  were  dismissed,  to  replace  whom 
the  following  eight  were  introduced :  William  Parr,  Marquess  of  North- 
ampton, the  Earl  of  Bedford,  Sir  Thomas  Parry,  Sir  Edward  Rogers, 
Sir  Ambrose  Cave,  Sir  Francis  Knollys,  Sir  Nicholas  Bacon  (who  was 
created  Lord  Keeper),  and  Sir  William  Cecil.  As  several  of  the  eleven 
old  Councillors  conformed,  a  preponderance  of  anti-Catholics  was  at 
once  secured. 

1  I  Zur.,  No.  iv,  p.  10. 


i4       ELIZABETH'S  ACCESSION  AND  THE 

Parliament  met,  and  then  to  make  the  desired  changes 
through  the  instrumentality  of  the  legislature.  The  lead- 
ing spirits  were,  of  course,  Sir  William  Cecil  and  his 
brother-in-law,  Sir  Nicholas  Bacon,  who  was  made  Lord 
Keeper  of  the  Privy  Seal  on  22nd  December,  1558,  as  soon 
as  Archbishop  Heath,  probably  by  inducement  or  pressure 
from  without,  resigned  his  temporal  offices.1 

During  this  time  various  schemes  were  being  brought  to 
the  notice  of  Cecil  and  other  intimate  advisers  of  the  Queen. 
One  may  be  usefully  considered  here,  as  foreshadowing 
future  developments.  In  the  Calendar  of  State  Papers2 
it  is  entitled  "  Notes  respecting  the  form  of  Public  Prayer 
to  be  established.  Arguments  against  the  power  of  the 
Church  of  Rome.  The  Queen  and  her  subjects  may  law- 
fully use  the  English  Litany  of  the  time  of  Henry  VIII." 
This  document  is  endorsed  "  Goodrych.  Divers  points  of 
Religion  contrary  to  the  Church  of  Rome."  Its  writer  was 
Richard  Goodrich.3  After  endeavouring  to  make  points  of 
various  very  lame  mediaeval  instances  of  imagined  rejec- 
tions of  papal  spiritual  authority  in  England,  the  writer 
proceeds :  "  My  Lord  Rich  hath,  I  think,  old  gatherings  of 
Records  and  other  matters  for  the  proof  of  [i.e.,  to  disprove] 
the  Papists  .  .  .  which  matter  will  be  good  to  stir  the 
Nobility  and  Commoners  to  devotion  of  the  liberty  of  this 
Realm  and  against  the  usurpation  of  the  Pope.  Like  peril 
is  it  in  mine  opinion  to  touch  his  authority  in  part,  as 
utterly  to  abolish  it;  therefore  it  seemeth  very  necessary 
well  to  consider  of  this  matter  for  his  weight  and  for  the 
danger  that  may  ensue  before  it  be  meddled  either  by 
Parliament  or  otherwise.  .  .  .  And  before  the  Parliament, 
nothing  against  him  may  be  attempted,  but  dissembled 
withal  in  the  meantime;  nor  at  the  Parliament  if  it  be 
holden  before  or  in  March  next.  I  think  his  authority  not 
to  be  touched    nor    anything  to  be   attempted   there  of 

1  But  see  his  own  account  of  the  transaction,  dated  26th  September, 
1573  {Cotton  MSS.,  Vespasian  F.  XIII,  No.  229,  f.  229). 

2  P.R.O.  Dom.  Eliz.,  I,  68  and  69;  1558. 

3  Cf.  Diet.  Nat.  Biogr.,  xxii,  p.  134. 


FIRST  MONTHS  OF  HER  REIGN  15 

matters  in  religion  except  the  repeal  [of  statutes  revived 
by  Queen  Mary].  All  proceedings  by  the  bishops,  ex 
officio,  shall  be  thereby  taken  away,  and  thereby  all  quiet 
persons  may  live  safely.  In  the  meantime  her  Majesty  and 
all  her  subjects  may  by  licence  of  law  use  the  English 
Litany  and  suffrages  used  in  King  Henry's  time,  and, 
besides,  her  Majesty  in  her  Closet  may  use  the  Mass  with- 
out lifting  up  above  the  Host  according  to  the  ancient 
canons  and  may  have  also  at  every  Mass  some  communi- 
cants with  the  ministers,  to  be  used  in  both  kinds.  Her 
Majesty  may  also  wink  at  the  married  priests  so  as  they 
use  their  wives  secretly.  ...  It  were  also  good  that  certain 
Homilies  in  English  were  published  to  be  read  in  every 
church.  ...  I  think  it  most  necessary  that  before  any 
pardon  published  after  the  old  manner  at  the  Coronation, 
that  certain  of  the  principal  prelates  be  committed  to  the 
Tower,  and  some  other  their  addicted  friends  and  late 
Councillors  to  the  Queen  that  dead  is,  and  all  the  rest  com- 
manded to  keep  their  houses  .  .  .  nor  the  sending  to  Rome 
any  Message  or  Letters,  and  if  be  any,  I  would  have  letters 
sent  to  the  Agent  there  to  continue  his  residence  and  to 
advertise  as  occasion  shall  be  given  without  desire  of  any 
audience;  and  if  he  should  be  sent  for,  that  he  should 
signify  that  he  understood  from  hence  that  there  was  a 
great  embassage  either  already  despatched  or  ready  to  be 
despatched  for  the  affairs,  whose  despatch  I  would  should 
be  published  with  the  persons'  names,  and  yet  traited  so  as 
it  should  pass  the  most  part  of  the  next  summer,  and  in 
the  mean  time  to  have  good  consultation  what  is  to  be  done 
at  home  and  do  it,  and  thereafter  send." 

To  this  advice,  so  deceitful  in  parts,  may  probably  be 
ascribed  the  imprisonment  of  Bishop  White,  of  Winchester, 
for  his  sermon  at  Mary's  funeral  obsequies,  and  the  perse- 
cution to  which  Sir  Edward  Waldegrave,  Sir  Thomas 
Wharton,  Sir  John  Bourne,  and  others  were  subjected  at 
no  distant  date.1    To  this  document,  too,  may  be  traced  the 

1  Cf.  P.R.O.  Dom.  Eliz.,  xvi,  No.  50,  19th  April,  1561.  Earl  of 
Oxford  to  the  Council,  about  the  arrest  of  two  of  those  knights,  con- 


16       ELIZABETH'S  ACCESSION  AND  THE 

immediate  order  of  the  Privy  Council  to  the  Justices  of 
Essex,  for  the  purpose  of  stopping  further  persecution  of 
gospellers.1  On  the  other  hand,  the  indiscreet  precipitancy 
of  zealots  had  to  be  restrained.  For  that  purpose,  the  Queen's 
proclamation  on  her  accession  to  the  throne  contained  the 
charge  "  not  to  attempt  upon  any  pretence  the  breach, 
alteration  or  change  of  any  order  or  usage  presently 
established."2  This  was  followed,  on  27th  December,  1558, 
I  by  another,  silencing  all  preachers,  but  ordering  the  Epistle 
and  Gospel  to  be  read  in  English,  as  also  the  Lord's  Prayer 
and  the  Creed  and  the  Litany;  otherwise  no  change  in 
the  services  was  to  be  introduced,  "  until  consultation  may 
be  had  by  Parliament,  by  her  Majesty  and  her  three  estates 
of  the  Realm  for  the  better  conciliation  and  accord  of  such 
causes  as  at  this  present  are  moved  in  matters  and  cere- 
monies of  religion."3  The  intention  to  effect  some  altera- 
tion, here  sounded  with  no  uncertain  note,  also  showed 
that  preparations  were  in  progress  to  bring  proposals  before 
the  coming  Parliament,  summoned  for  23rd  January,  a 
few  days  after  the  ceremony  of  the  Coronation.  What  the 
nature  of  those  proposals  was  transpires  from  an  important 
document  preserved  among  the  Cotton  MSS.  This  is  "  A 
copy  of  the  device  for  alteration  of  religion  at  the  1st  year 
of  Queen  Elizabeth."4  It  is  significant  that  the  suggestions 
therein  contained  practically  found  their  fulfilment  in  one 
shape  or  another  before  many  months  had  elapsed.  There- 
fore, whether  it  was  official,  or  merely  the  outcome  of 
officiousness  on  the  part  of  a  private  enthusiast,  is  of  small 
consequence  beside  the  fact  that,  if  it  was  nothing  else,  it 
was  an  extremely  intelligent  anticipation  of  events,  and  as 
such  it  deserves  consideration.  The  forecast  of  possible  or 
probable  opposition,  and  the  quarters  whence  it  might  be 
expected,  may  be  passed  by  with  the  remark  that  it  is  a 

taining,  also,  an  interesting  inventory  of  church  stuff  found  at  New 
Hall,  Essex.   (Cf.  also,  C0U071  MSS.   Galba  C.  1,  No.  29,  f.  87.) 

1  Strype,  Ann.,  i,  p.  25 ;  Harl.  MSS.,  vol.  169,  No.  1,  f.  25^. 

2  Ibid.,  Ann.,  i,  App.  No.  1.  3  Wilkins,  Concilia,  IV,  p.  180. 
1  Julius  F  VI,  No.  86,  f.  161. 


FIRST  MONTHS  OF  HER  REIGN  17 

tribute  to  the  writer's  perspicacity:  some  of  the  remedies 
he  suggested  are  what  here  concern  us.  Those  of  Mary's 
Council  who  were  specially  noted  for  their  Catholic  sym- 
pathies "  must  be  searched  by  all  law  as  far  as  justice  may 
extend,  and  the  Queen's  Majesty's  clemency  to  be  ex- 
tended not  before  they  do  fully  acknowledge  themselves  to 
have  fallen  in  the  lapse  of  the  law.  They  must  be  based 
[debased]  of  authority,  discredited  in  their  countries  so 
long  as  they  seem  to  repugn  to  the  true  religion  or  to 
maintain  their  old  proceedings.  .  .  .  and  contrariwise,  as 
those  men  must  be  based,  so  must  her  Highness'  old  and 
sure  servants,  who  have  tarried  with  her,  and  not  shrunk  in 
the  late  storms,  be  advanced  with  authority  and  credit." 
With  regard  to  the  bishops  and  the  clergy,  the  govern- 
ment "  must  seek  as  well  by  Parliament  as  by  the  just 
laws  of  England  in  the  Praemunire  or  such  other  penal 
laws,  to  bring  again  in  order,  and  being  found  in  defaults, 
not  to  pardon  till  they  confess  their  fault,  put  themselves 
wholly  to  her  Highness'  mercy,  abjure  the  Pope  of  Rome, 
and  conform  themselves  to  the  new  alteration."  As  regards 
the  magistrates,  it  was  suggested  that  those  then  in  office 
should  be  removed  from  the  Commission  of  the  Peace,  and  in 
their  place  should  be  substituted  "  men  meaner  in  substance 
and  younger  in  years."  The  same  drastic  remedy  was  pro- 
posed for  military  commands :  in  fact,  "  No  office  of  juris- 
diction or  authority  to  be  in  any  discontented  man's  hand,  so 
far  as  justice  or  law  may  extend."  The  Universities,  together 
with  Eton  and  Winchester  Colleges,  were  to  be  looked  to, 
that  is,  purged  of  the  old  leaven,  and  the  new  service  book 
to  supersede  the  old  Liturgy  was  to  be  drawn  up  ready  for 
the  opening  of  Parliament,  by  a  committee  of  divines. 
For  this  purpose  the  following  suggestions,  which,  as  will 
be  seen,  were  adopted  almost  to  the  letter,  were  made. 

"  This  consultation  is  to  be  referred  to  such  learned  men 
as  be  meet  to  show  their  minds  herein,  and  to  bring  a  platt 
[scheme]  or  book  hereof,  ready  drawn,  to  her  Highness. 
Which  being  approved  by  her  Majesty,  may  be  so  put  into 
the  Parliament  house,  to  the  which  for  the  time  it  is 
C 


18        ELIZABETH'S  ACCESSION  AND  THE 

thought  that  these  are  apt  men;  Dr.  Bill,  Dr.  Parker, 
Dr.  May,  Dr.  Cox,  Mr.  Whitehead,  Mr.  Grindal,  Mr.  Pilk- 
ington.  And  Sir  Thomas  Smythe  to  call  them  together, 
and  be  amongst  them."  Even  the  actual  place  of  meeting, 
namely,  Sir  Thomas  Smythe's  residence  in  Canon  Row, 
Westminster,  was  indicated.  The  framer  of  this  "  device  "  * 
had  even  provided  for  the  ad  interim  arrangements  till 
Parliament  should  have  made  a  settlement,  and  for  that 
end  proposed  "  to  alter  no  further  than  her  Majesty  hath, 
except  it  be  to  receive  the  Communion  as  her  Highness 
pleaseth  on  high  feasts.  And  that  where  there  be  more 
chaplains  at  Mass,  that  they  do  always  communicate  with 
the  executor  [celebrant]  in  both  kinds.  And  for  her 
Highness'  conscience  till  then,  if  there  be  some  other  devout 
sort  of  prayers  or  memory  said,  and  the  seldomer  Mass." 

In  pursuance  of  the  above  plan,  the  service  books  used 
in  the  reign  of  Edward  VI  were  referred  to  the  divines 
there  named,  as  well  as  to  Sir  Thomas  Smythe,  and  to 
them  was  added  Edmund  Ghest.  As  a  result  of  their 
deliberations,  the  Committee  adopted  the  Second  Book  of 
1552  in  preference  to  the  First  of  1549.  The  reason  of  the 
selection  is  not  far  to  seek.  The  earlier  book  approximated 
more  nearly  than  the  later  one  to  the  old  services,  con- 
taining as  it  did  such  popish  leaven  as  crossings,  proces- 
sions, vestments,  prayers  for  the  dead,  etc.,  the  abolition 
of  all  which  these  revisers  suggested.  With  a  view  to 
reconciling  Catholics  to  the  use  of  this  book,  they  omitted 
from  the  Litany  the  petition  praying  for  deliverance  "  from 
the  Pope  and  all  his   detestable  enormities,"  which   had 

1  Strype  says :  "  At  the  very  beginning  of  her  reign,  some  there 
were  of  considerable  rank  engaged  in  a  deep  and  very  secret  delibera- 
tion about  the  method  and  way  of  restoring  religion  again  .  .  .  who  of 
the  Queen's  Council  were  first  to  be  made  acquainted  with  the  design. 
.  .  .  There  was  about  the  beginning  of  December  [1558]  such  a  device 
drawn  up  by  some  notable  hand,  and  offered  to  Secretary  Cecil.  .  .  . 
By  whose  pen  it  was  writ  doth  not  appear."  Strype  ascribes  it  either 
to  John  Hales,  clerk  of  the  hanaper  to  Henry  VIII,  Edward  VI,  and 
Elizabeth,  a  zealous  Protestant,  or  to  Sir  Thomas  Smythe  himself,  in- 
clining rather  to  the  latter. — Annals,  i,  pp.  51-2. 


FIRST  MONTHS  OF  HER  REIGN  19 

figured  in  both  the  Edwardine  Prayer  Books.  The  book 
was  then  submitted  to  the  Queen,  but  she  did  not  approve 
of  the  omission  of  certain  ceremonies;  and,  in  the  end, 
caused  a  proviso  to  be  added  to  the  Act  of  Uniformity  to 
the  effect  that  "  such  Ornaments  of  the  Church,  and  of  the 
ministers  thereof,  shall  be  retained  and  be  in  use,  as  was 
in  the  Church  of  England,  by  authority  of  Parliament,  in 
the  second  year  of  the  reign  of  King  Edward  VI,  until 
other  order  shall  be  therein  taken  by  the  authority  of  the 
Queen's  Majesty,  with  the  advice  of  her  commissioners 
appointed  and  authorised,  under  the  Great  Seal  of  Eng- 
land, for  Causes  Ecclesiastical,  or  of  the  Metropolitan  of 
this  Realm."1  Some  years  afterwards,  Archbishop  Parker 
reminded  Sir  William  Cecil,  when  a  question  had  arisen  as 
to  the  proper  kind  of  bread  to  be  used  in  celebrating  the 
Communion  service,  that  the  Queen,  acting  on  the  powers 
thus  reserved  to  her,  had  issued  certain  injunctions  to 
regulate  the  observance,  adding  that  her  Majesty  had  de- 
clared: "but  for  which  law  her  Highness  would  not  have 
agreed  to  divers  orders  of  the  Book."2 

Though  the  Queen  showed  in  this  instance  that  she  did 
not  approve  of  the  lengths  to  which  the  more  advanced 
reformers  wished  to  go,  nevertheless  she  soon  evinced  a 
disposition  to  sanction  certain  innovations  in  the  Liturgy; 
and  the  Count  de  Feria  told  King  Philip  that,  little  by 
little,  changes  were  being  introduced:  how  Owen  Ogle- 
thorpe, Bishop  of  Carlisle,  was  forbidden  to  elevate  the 
sacred  Host  when  about  to  celebrate  Mass  in  the  Queen's 
presence:  his  courageous  answer  to  the  effect  that  he  did 
not  take  his  rubrical  directions  from  her:  the  Queen's 
departure  from  the  Chapel  after  the  Gospel,  in  displeasure: 
how,  at  the  obsequies  celebrated  in  memory  of  the  Emperor 
Charles  V,  the  celebrant,  an  heretical  minister,  omitted  the 
name  of  the  Pope  in  the  Canon,  said  the  Pater  Noster 
in  English,  and  that  a  Litany  was  recited  without  the  in- 

1  Statutes  of  the  Realm,  IV,  pt.  i,  p.  355.    1  Eliz.  c.  2  adjinem. 

2  Parker,  Corresp.,  p.  375.    No.  cclxxxiii.   8th  January,  1 570-1. 


20       ELIZABETH'S  ACCESSION  AND  THE 

vocation  of  any  saint,  as  in  the  reign  of  Edward  VI.1 
Indeed,  so  marked  was  the  departure  from  the  normal 
Catholic  usage,  that  the  Spanish  ambassador  felt  con- 
strained to  absent  himself  from  the  ceremony  of  the 
Coronation,  being  conscientiously  unwilling  to  participate 
in  a  maimed  function;  although,  to  do  Elizabeth  personal 
honour,  he  accompanied  her  to  the  doors  of  Westminster 
Abbey.  This  fact  is  gathered  from  Philip's  reply,  approv- 
ing of  the  course  adopted  by  his  representative.2  That 
the  Count  de  Feria  had  legitimate  grounds  for  his  appre- 
hensions and  for  his  abstention  may  be  inferred  from 
Sander,  who  relates  that  "  she  took  the  usual  oaths  of 
Christian  kings,  prescribed  by  tradition  and  by  law,  in  the 
most  solemn  way,  to  defend  the  Catholic  Faith,  and  to 
guard  the  rights  and  immunities  of  the  Church.  .  .  .  She 
was  also  anointed,  but  she  disliked  the  ceremony  and 
ridiculed  it;  for  when  she  withdrew,  according  to  the 
custom,  to  put  on  the  royal  garments,  it  is  reported  that 
she  said  to  the  noble  ladies  in  attendance  upon  her:  '  away 
with  you,  the  oil  is  stinking  ! '" 3 

The  tendencies  towards  change  so  far  indicated,  were  of 
their  nature  official  and  regulated.  But  in  all  movements, 
widespreading,  nay  national,  these  tendencies  also  exhibit 
themselves  in  another  form,  not  necessarily  antagonistic  or 
contradictory,  but  rather  complementary  the  one  of  the 
other.  These  are  represented  by  popular  and,  to  some 
extent  at  least,  irresponsible  action.  The  successive  steps 
taken  by  the  Council,  and,  at  a  later  period,  by  the  Reformed 
bishops  acting  under  them,  may  be  likened  to  the  incoming 
tide,  irresistible  in  its  force  and  volume.  The  popular  move- 
ment, on  the  other  hand,  is  to  be  compared  with  the  fitful 

1  Cf.  Chron.  Belg.,  No.  CCLXXi,  i,  pp.  365-6;  29th  December, 
1558. 

2  Chron.  Belg.,  No.  CCXCIH,  i,  p.  411  ;  28th  January,  1558-9.  Lingard, 
following  Camden,  merely  says  he  was  "  invited  but  refused  to  attend  " 
without  mentioning  the  qualification  indicated  above. — Hist,  of  Engl., 
vi,  p.  351. 

3  Sander,  Anglican  Schism,  ed.  1877,  p.  243. 


FIRST  MONTHS  OF  HER  REIGN  21 

gusts  of  the  wind,  blowing  now  this  way,  now  that,  never 
constant  in  force  or  direction.  Something  must  be  said 
here  about  this  manifestation  of  public  feeling. 

A  bare  fortnight  after  Elizabeth's  accession,  she  made 
it  plain  through  her  Council  that  the  religious  policy  of  the 
previous  reign  was  to  undergo  a  change,  and  an  order  went 
down  "to  Sir  Ambrose  Jernin  (a  Justice,  as  I  think,  in 
Suffolk),"  says  Strype,1  "  to  stay  the  further  persecution  of 
the  professors  of  the  Gospel."  This,  it  is  true,  is  but  negative 
evidence ;  and  according  to  our  views  about  toleration, 
it  was  an  act  not  merely  of  mercy,  but  of  right  and  justice. 
In  those  days,  however,  such  a  circumstance  was  calculated 
to  set  men  pondering  on  what  the  near  future  might  have 
in  store.  Nor  had  they  long  to  wait  for  developments. 
Exactly  a  month  after  the  Queen's  accession,  II  Schifanoya, 
writing  to  the  Chancellor  of  the  Duchy  of  Mantua,  says: 
"  I  hear  that  at  the  Court,  when  the  Queen  is  present,  a 
priest  officiates,  who  says  certain  prayers  with  the  Litanies 
in  English,  after  the  fashion  of  King  Edward ;  .  .  .  They 
then  say  Vespers  and  Compline  in  the  old  style." 2 

But,  as  is  always  the  case,  where  rulers  may  be  desirous 
of  proceeding  slowly  and  cautiously,  the  unquiet  spirits, 
with  nothing  to  lose  and  everything  to  gain  through  change, 
force  the  pace,  regardless  of  consequences.  The  death  of 
Mary  had  put  heart  into  the  religious  exiles  at  Geneva, 
Frankfort,  and  elsewhere  on  the  continent,  and  they  came 
flocking  back  as  soon  as  they  knew  that  their  necks  were 
safe.  By  the  middle  of  March,  II  Schifanoya  calculated  that 
some  three  hundred  of  them  had  returned.3  They  had  been 
firebrands  in  Edward's  reign.  It  was  because  of  their 
revolutionary  and  inflammatory  language  that  they  had 
made  their  position  intolerable  during  Mary's  short  rule, 
and  forced  the  hand  of  authority  to  silence  them  by  coercive 
measures,  even  unto  what  is  called  persecution.  Abroad, 
their  disputatious  natures  still  asserted  themselves  in  the 
Frankfort  squabbles;  and  now,  once  more  back  at  home, 

1  Ann.,  i,  p.  25.        2  Venetian  Papers,  No.  1,  17th  December,  1558 
3  Ibid.,  No.  45,  21st  March,  1558-9. 


22        ELIZABETH'S  ACCESSION  AND  THE 

they  had  brought  with  them  all  the  acrimony  and  bitterness 
engendered  by  their  bickerings  at  Frankfort.  Their  turbu- 
lence, far  from  abating,  created  further  trouble,  and  they 
recommenced  their  disputes  in  London,  their  leading  spirit 
being  Thomas  Bentham  who,  to  the  credit  of  his  courage, 
had  even  during  the  later  part  of  Mary's  reign  officiated  as 
a  reformed  minister  in  London,  at  imminent  risk  to  his 
liberty  and  life.  The  new  Queen  set  a  fashion  in  change. 
II  Schifanoya  relates  that  "  on  Christmas  Day,  the  Bishop 
of  Carlisle  [Oglethorpe]  sang  High  Mass;  and  her  Majesty 
sent  to  tell  him  that  he  was  not  to  elevate  the  Host;  to 
which  the  good  bishop  replied  that  thus  had  he  learned  the 
Mass,  and  that  she  must  pardon  him  as  he  could  not  do 
otherwise;  so  the  Gospel  being  ended,  her  Majesty  rose 
and  departed,  and  on  other  days  it  has  been  so  done  by 
her  chaplains."  l  In  this  same  letter  II  Schifanoya  relates 
that  various  brawls  had  taken  place  during  the  previous 
week.  At  the  church  of  the  Austin  Friars  a  mob  burst  in, 
and  the  leaders  held  forth  against  the  government  of  the 
late  Queen.  Disorders  of  this  nature  continued  for  some 
days.  These  and  similar  events  determined  Elizabeth  to 
issue  her  proclamation  of  27th  December,  1558,  whereby  it 
was  "  commanded  that  no  one  of  whatever  grade  or  condi- 
tion should  presume  to  preach,  say,  treat,  or  teach  in  any 
other  mode,  nor  according  to  any  other  use  than  had  hitherto 
been  customary  in  the  churches,  nor  to  alter  or  change  any 
ecclesiastical  ceremony,  except  that  they  were  to  recite 
both  the  Gospel  and  the  Epistle,  and  the  Ten  Command- 
ments in  English,  not  adding  to  them  nor  giving  other 
interpretations,  together  with  the  Litany,  in  the  mode  used 
and  practised  in  her  Majesty's  own  chapel." 2  As  Jewel 
informed  Peter  Martyr,3  the  proclamation  was  sent  to  the 

1  Venetia.fi  Papers,  No.  2,  31st  December,  1558  ;  see  also  letter  of  Sir 
Wm.  Fitzwilliam  to  Mr.  More,  Losely  Papers;  Ellis's  Original  Letters, 
v,  p.  262,  26th  December,  1558. 

"-Ibid.;  Wilkins's  Concilia,  iv,  p.  180;  H.  Dyson's  Proclamations, 
f.  3;  11  Zur.,  p.  16. 

3  I  Zur.,  p.  7,  No.  3,  26th  January,  1558-9. 


FIRST  MONTHS  OF  HER  REIGN  23 

Lord  Mayor  of  London  on  28th  December,  with  orders  to 
see  it  enforced.  Jewel  suggests  in  explanation  of  the  need 
for  it:  "  some  think  the  reason  of  this  to  be,  that  there  was 
at  that  time  only  one  minister  of  the  Word  in  London, 
namely  Bentham,  whereas  the  number  of  Papists  was  very 
considerable;  others  think  that  it  is  owing  to  the  circum- 
stance that,  having  heard  only  one  public  discourse  of 
Bentham's,  the  people  began  to  dispute  among  themselves 
about  ceremonies,  some  declaring  for  Geneva,  and  some 
for  Frankfort.  Whatever  it  be,  I  only  wish  that  our  party 
may  not  act  with  too  much  worldly  prudence  and  policy  in 
the  cause  of  God."  l 

This  proclamation,  as  has  already  been  stated,  was  to 
hold  good  only  "  until  consultation  may  be  had  by  Parlia- 
ment."2 II  Schifanoya  also  gave  this  information  to  his 
correspondent,  and  enclosed  a  Latin  copy  of  the  document, 
at  the  same  time  telling  him  that  "  hitherto  every  one  says 
Mass  and  the  Office  in  the  old  way,  and  the  friars  and 
priests  follow  the  usual  ritual;  but  in  certain  places  in  the 
realm  they  have  commenced  going  in  procession  without 
a  cross,  and  saying  the  Litanies  used  in  the  time  of  King 
Edward." 

It  is  useful  to  remember  that,  so  far,  entire  freedom  of 
worship  was  accorded  to  all,  for  a  letter  written  to  the  Doge 
and  Senate  of  Venice  on  2nd  January,  1558-9,  states  that 
already  "  the  greater  part "  of  the  people,  following  the 
Queen's  example,  "  have  entirely  renounced  the  Mass,  but 
she  does  not  prevent  any  of  the  few  who  attend  it  from 
continuing  to  do  so  in  safety,  and  without  being  outraged 
in  any  way."3  But  the  feelings  of  adherents  of  the  old 
order  were  seriously  outraged  in  other  ways,  which  showed 
no  less  unmistakably  the  trend  affairs  were  taking.  II 
Schifanoya,  writing  on  23rd  January,  1558-9,  mentions  "  the 
mummery  performed  after  supper  on  the  same  day  [Twelfth 

1  See,  too,  Strype,  Ann.,  i,  p.  41. 

2  Proclamation  :  Wilkins's  Concilia,  iv,  p.  180;  I  Zur.,  p.  16  {note), 
No.  1. 

3  Venetian  Papers,  No.  5,  2nd  January,  1558-9. 


24       ELIZABETH'S  ACCESSION  AND  THE 

Night]  of  crows  in  the  habits  of  cardinals,  of  asses  habited 
as  bishops,  and  of  wolves  representing  abbots";  as  also 
"  the  masquerade  of  friars  in  the  streets  of  London." l 
Writing  on  6th  February,  1558-9,  he  says:  "There  are  yet 
many  frivolous  and  foolish  people  who  daily  invent  plays 
in  derision  of  the  Catholic  faith,  of  the  Church,  of  the  clergy, 
and  of  the  religion ;  and,  by  placards  posted  at  the  corners 
of  the  streets,  they  invite  people  to  the  taverns,  to  see  these 
representations,  taking  money  from  their  audience." 2  Con- 
trast with  these  scenes  the  summoning  before  the  Council 
of  John  Morren  (or  Morwen),  chaplain  to  Bishop  Bonner 
and  Rector  of  St.  Martin's,  Ludgate, "  for  preaching  contrary 
to  the  Queen's  proclamation,  and  expounding  the  Gospel 
in  the  church;  which,  when  he  was  before  them,  he  could 
not  well  deny;  wherefore  he  was  committed  to  the  Fleet, 
there  to  be  kept  without  conference  of  any  until  he  were 
examined."3  And  there  he  remained  from  some  time  in 
February,  1558-9,  till  his  release  on  the  16th  March  follow- 
ing. It  is  clear  that  exhibitions  such  as  have  been  mentioned 
above,  permitted  unrebuked,  could  have  but  one  purpose: 
the  casting  of  ridicule  upon  all  that  had  hitherto  been  held 
in  reverence.  With  such  an  example  before  them,  the  mob, 
ever  ready  for  riot  and  violence,  would  not  be  slow  to  go 
to  greater  lengths;  and  on  the  8th  or  9th  of  January,  the 
rabble,  intent  on  mischief,  threw  down  and  broke  the  statue 
of  St.  Thomas  of  Canterbury,  patron  of  the  Mercers,  which 
stood  over  the  chapel  door  of  their  Guild  or  Company.4  II 
Schifanoya  adds  the  detail  that  the  rioters  glutted  their 
senseless  hatred  by  stoning  and  beheading  the  image,  which 
was  replaced  by  the  "  stucco  statue  of  a  little  girl."  5  By  the 
6th  of  February,  the  use  of  English  Litanies  had  been  intro- 
duced into  several  London  churches,  following  the  example 
of  the  Chapel  Royal.  It  is  this  circumstance  which  perhaps 
led  Giovanni  Michiel,  writing  in  France,  on  hearsay,  to 
allege  that  the  English  nation  had  "  entirely  renounced  the 

1    Venetian  Papers,  No.  10.  2  Ibid.,  No.  18. 

3  Strype,  Ann.,  i,  p.  42.  4  Ibid.,  i,  p.  48. 

5   Venetian  Papers,  No.  10,  23rd  January,  1558-9. 


FIRST  MONTHS  OF  HER  REIGN  25 

Mass,'"  for  II  Schifanoya,  on  the  spot,  distinctly  states,  five 
weeks  later,  that  "Mass  is  nevertheless  [i.e.,  notwithstanding 
many  changes  he  mentions]  said  in  all  the  churches,  the 
Host  being  elevated  as  usual  in  the  presence  of  numerous 
congregations  who  show  much  devotion ;  so  it  is  evide?it  that 
the  religion  has  not  such  a  sorry  footing  or  foundation  as 
was  supposed,  for  everybody  is  now  at  liberty  to  go  or 
to  stay  away."2  But  the  factious  among  the  reformers 
would  allow  no  other  liberty  than  their  own  to  the  more 
peaceful  and  peaceable  folk.  As  is  always  the  way  with 
innovators,  aggressiveness  and  intolerance  took  the  place 
of  argument;  and  worse  outrages  followed  as  a  matter  of 
course.  II  Schifanoya  relates  that  "others  rob  the  churches 
by  night,  break  the  windows,  and  steal  whatever  they  can, 
as  they  did  two  nights  ago,3  at  the  church  of  the  Italian 
nation,  where  they  stole  the  tabernacle  of  the  Sacrament, 
which  they  thought  was  of  silver,  but  they  found  it  to  be  of 
gilt  copper,  nor  did  it  contain  the  Sacrament;  and  a  pall 
with  other  trifles,  worth  about  two  or  three  crowns,  not 
having  from  fear  of  discovery  dared  to  enter  the  sacristy, 
which  contained  the  sacerdotal  ornaments,  chalices,  crosses, 
etc. ;  the  thieves  remaining  unpunished." 4  Strype  also  re- 
cords that  during  the  course  of  the  next  month,  "several 
got  together  privately  and  undiscovered,"  broke  into  Bow 
church,  where  they  "  pulled  down  the  images  and  the  Sacra- 
ment, and  defaced  the  vestments  and  books." 5  II  Schifanoya 
ascribed  these  and  similar  outrages  to  the  direct  incitement 
of  the  preachers.  "  These  accursed  preachers,"  he  says, 
"  who  have  come  from  Germany,  do  not  fail  to  preach  in 
their  own  fashion,  both  in  public  and  in  private,  in  such 
wise  that  they  persuaded  certain  rogues  forcibly  to  enter 
the  church  of  St.  Mary-le-Bow,  in  the  middle  of  Cheapside, 
and  force  the  shrine  of  the  Most  Holy  Sacrament,  breaking 
the  tabernacle,  and  throwing  the  most  precious  consecrated 

1  Venetian  Papers,  No.  5,  2nd  January,  1558-9,  already  quoted. 

2  Ibid.,  No.  18,  6th  February,  1558-9.  3  4th  February,  1558-9. 
*   Venetian  Papers,  No.  18,  6th  February,  1558-9. 

5  Ann.,  i,  p.  49. 


26       ELIZABETH'S  ACCESSION  AND  THE 

Body  of  Jesus  Christ  to  the  ground.  They  also  destroyed 
the  altar  and  images,  with  the  pall  and  church  linen,  break- 
ing everything  into  a  thousand  pieces.  This  happened  this 
very  night,  which  is  the  third  after  Easter."  '  Such  violence, 
however,  outstepped  all  limits  of  endurance  or  connivance; 
the  Council,  perturbed  by  such  "  outrageous  disorder,"  issued 
instructions  for  an  enquiry  in  order  to  discover  the  perpe- 
trators, and  commit  them  to  prison,  but  with  small  result. 

So  far,  outwardly  and  officially,  no  violent  change  had 
been  made,  no  irrevocable  break  with  the  past  effected, 
due,  as  time  showed,  merely  to  a  policy  of  temporising 
while  more  sweeping  measures  were  in  preparation.  The 
proclamation  of  27th  December,  1558,  did  not  abolish  the 
Mass,  which  for  another  six  months  was  to  continue  to  be 
the  legal  form  of  divine  worship,  the  elevation  of  the  Host 
alone  being  omitted,  the  Epistle,  Gospel,  Creed,  and  Lord's 
Prayer  being  read  in  the  vernacular.  The  out-and-out 
reformers  were  by  no  means  satisfied  with  the  caution 
displayed  by  the  Queen;  and,  as  Collier  puts  it:  "pre- 
suming on  the  favour  of  the  government,  ventured  beyond 
the  protection  of  the  constitution ;  and  thus  meeting  first 
in  private  houses,  and  afterwards  in  churches,  preached 
their  persuasion,  and  drew  great  audiences  after  them."  a 
Jewel,  writing  to  Peter  Martyr  on  14th  April,  1559,  says: 
"  The  Mass  in  many  places  has  of  itself  fallen  to  the 
ground,  without  any  laws  for  its  discontinuance.  If  the 
Queen  herself  would  but  banish  it  from  her  private  chapel, 
the  whole  thing  might  easily  be  got  rid  of.  Of  such  im- 
portance among  us  are  the  examples  of  princes.  For 
whatever  is  done  after  the  example  of  the  Sovereign,  the 
people,  as  you  well  know,  suppose  to  be  done  rightly.  She 
has,  however,  so  regulated  this  Mass  of  hers  (which  she 
has  hitherto  retained  only  from  the  circumstances  of  the 
times),  that  although  many  things  are  done  therein  which 
are  scarcely  to  be  endured,  it  may  yet  be  heard  without 
any  great  danger." 3 

1  Venetian  Papers,  No.  51,  28th  March,  1559. 

2  Eccl.  Hist.,  vol.  vi,  p.  411.  3  1  Zur.,  p.  18,  No.  6. 


FIRST  MONTHS  OF  HER  REIGN  27 

The  Litany,  which  was  used  for  a  short  while  almost 
immediately  after  Elizabeth's  accession,  contained  the 
petition  of  its  Edvvardine  prototype:  "From  the  tyranny 
of  the  Bishop  of  Rome,  and  all  his  detestable  enormities," 
as  well  as  another  clause  marking  its  date  of  publication, 
"  That  it  may  please  Thee  to  keep  Elizabeth  thy  servant  our 
Queen  and  Governor."  But  as  has  been  already  pointed  out, 
the  petition  in  the  edition  issued  in  1559  was  omitted,  and 
the  latter  clause  was  thus  expanded :  "  That  it  may  please 
Thee  to  keep  and  strengthen  in  the  true  worshipping  of 
Thee,  in  righteousness  and  holiness  of  life,  Thy  servant 
Elizabeth,  our  most  gracious  Queen  and  Governor."  It 
may  be  doubted  if  the  earlier  recension  was  ever  recited  in 
the  hearing  of  the  Queen  in  the  Chapel  Royal. 

But  notwithstanding  the  Queen's  caution,  and  her  en- 
deavour to  restrain  the  fiery  zeal  of  the  returned  exiles,  it 
is  clear  that  these  were  not  over  scrupulous  in  their  ob- 
servance of  the  Christmas-week  proclamation.  In  defiance 
of  its  terms,  the  Edwardine  Prayer  Book  was  introduced, 
as  we  learn  on  the  unimpeachable  authority  of  Bishop 
Pilkington,  into  some  of  the  churches.  "  Did  not  many  in 
the  University  and  abroad  in  the  realm,"  he  boasts,  as 
early  as  1 563,  "  use  this  service  openly  and  commonly  in 
their  churches,  afore  it  was  received  and  enacted  by  Parlia- 
ment ? "  *  Thomas  Lever  informed  Bullinger  on  8th 
August  1559,  that  "there  had  been  a  congregation  of 
faithful  persons  concealed  in  London  during  the  time  of 
Mary  .  .  .  under  Elizabeth  they  openly  continued  in  the 
same  congregation.  But  as  their  godly  mode  of  worship 
was  condemned  by  the  laws  of  the  realm,  the  magistrates, 
though  they  connived  at  their  frequent  assembling  in 
private  houses,  would  not  allow  them,  notwithstanding,  to 
occupy  the  parish  churches.  In  consequence  of  which,  large 
numbers  flocked  to  them  not  in  the  churches,  but  in  private 
houses.  ...  I  have  frequently  been  present  on  such  occa- 
sions." 2  It  is  not  surprising,  then,  that  shortly  after  Par- 
liament commenced  its  sittings,  II  Schifanoya  should  in- 
1  Pilkington's  Works,  p.  626.  2  II  Z«r.,  p.  29,  No.  13. 


28        ELIZABETH'S  ACCESSION  AND  THE 

form  Vivaldino  that  "  in  several  churches  in  London  they 
have  commenced  singing  the  Litanies  in  English,  as  is 
done  in  the  Chapel  Royal." *  Another  letter  from  London 
of  the  same  date,  enclosed  in  one  of  17th  February,  from 
Paulo  Tiepolo,  records  that "  The  offices  of  the  Church,  and 
the  ministration  of  the  sacraments,  continue  in  all  the 
churches  as  during  Queen  Mary's  reign,  except  in  the 
Queen's  chapel,  where,  at  the  Mass,  they  do  not  elevate  the 
Sacrament;  and  the  Litanies  are  said  in  the  vulgar  English, 
omitting  the  invocation  of  Saints,  and  the  prayers  for  the 
Pope;  which  practice  is  also  observed  by  the  incumbents 
of  some  few  churches ;  but  they  are  not  compelled  to  do  so. 
The  Epistle  and  Gospel  are  also  read  in  English,  after  the 
Litanies." 2  But,  at  the  same  time,  a  watch  was  kept  on 
those  who  might  be  suspected  of  inflaming  men's  minds,  and 
of  urging  them  to  resist  impending  changes.  II  Schifanoya, 
in  the  letter  just  quoted,  goes  on  to  say:  "Persons  in 
authority,  however,  do  not  fail  to  try  the  ford,  as  they  did 
the  other  day  by  accusing  two  Doctors  of  Law,  the  one  a 
priest,  and  the  other  a  layman,  of  speaking  evil  of  the 
affairs  of  religion;  to  which  they  bravely  and  prudently 
answered  the  Lords  of  the  Council,  and  especially  the 
layman,  by  name  Master  Storye  [Dr.  John  Storye],  who 
said:  '  you  need  not  interrogate  me  about  these  matters, 
as  I  know  better  than  any  of  you  both  the  Canon  Laws 
and  those  of  this  kingdom;  let  my  accusers  appear  and 
prove  what  I  have  said,  for  I  certainly  said  nothing  at 
which  you  could  reasonably  take  offence;  but  should  her 
Majesty  will  otherwise,  I  do  not  refuse  to  die  for  the 
Church.'  The  other  said  the  like,  telling  the  Lords  of  the 
Council  besides  that  her  Majesty  could  not  do  them  a 
greater  favour.  So,  from  what  I  hear,  all  the  clergy  are 
united  and  confirmed  in  their  holy  and  good  resolution. 
Some  of  them  will  perhaps  change  their  minds,  but  they 
will  be  esteemed  for  what  they  are."  This  passage  is  here 
reproduced,  as  the  incident  does  not  appear  in  the  minutes 

1  Venetian  Papers,  No.  18,  6th  February,  1558-9. 

2  Ibid.,  No.  19. 


MONTHS  OF  I 


FIRST  MONTHS  OF  HER  REIGN  29 

of  Council  that  have  come  down  to  us.  The  challenge  may 
perhaps  have  been  somewhat  braggart  and  premature,  for  the 
day  of  actual  death  by  martyrdom  was  still  a  long  way  off; 
but  martyrdom  of  another  sort,  calling  for  heroism  only  less 
exalted  than  that  needed  to  face  a  terrible  death,  was  even 
then  casting  its  shadow  over  many,  both  priests  and 
laity.  On  14th  March,  II  Schifanoya  could  still  say,  that 
although  the  debates  in  Parliament  were  adverse  to  the 
retention  of  the  old  Faith,  "  nevertheless  all  over  London 
they  still  persevere  in  saying  the  Masses  and  divine  service 
as  formerly,  except  in  the  Chapel  Royal."  !  It  may  be  said 
once  for  all  that  this  faith  in  the  strength  of  tradition  and 
attachment  to  ancient  custom  proved  to  be  misplaced.  It 
could  not  stand  for  long  against  adverse  legislation.  The 
devotion  or  obstinacy — call  it  which  we  may — of  indi- 
vidual priests,  or  even  of  the  whole  body  of  clergy,  only 
deferred  the  inevitable  day  of  submission.  It  was  Parlia- 
ment, not  Convocation,  which  was  to  decide  the  future.  It 
is  to  Parliament  then  that  we  may  direct  our  attention; 
for  in  the  proceedings  of  that  legislative  assembly  we  may 
best  trace  the  abolition  of  the  old  order,  and  the  fashioning 
of  the  new. 

Cox  wrote  on  20th  May,  1559,  to  Wolfgang  Weidner, 
when  the  revolt  from  Rome  was  an  accomplished  fact,  that 
"  we,  that  little  flock  [of  returned  exiles],  are  thundering 
forth  in  our  pulpits,  and  especially  before  our  Queen  Eliza- 
beth, that  the  Roman  Pontiff  is  truly  Antichrist,  and  that 
traditions  are  for  the  most  part  mere  blasphemies." 2 
Although  written  in  the  present  tense,  the  context  makes  it 
refer  to  a  period  anterior  to  the  Westminster  Conference, 
and  this  accords  with  facts.  Though  general  preaching 
was  forbidden  by  proclamation,  nevertheless  there  were 
public  sermons  at  Paul's  Cross,  or  before  the  Queen  in  her 
chapel  during  Lent ;  and  the  preachers  were  selected  from 
amongst  the  reformers.  Richard  Hilles,  writing  to  Bull- 
inger  on  28th  February,  1558-9,  told  him  that  although 
"  silence  has  been  imposed  upon  the  Catholic  preachers  (as 

1    Venetian  Papers,  No.  40.  2  I  Zur.,  p.  27,  No.  11. 


30       ELIZABETH'S  ACCESSION  AND  THE 

they  are  called)  by  a  royal  proclamation  .  .  .  sufficient 
liberty  is  allowed  to  the  Gospellers  to  preach  three  times  a 
week  during  this  Lent  before  the  Queen  herself,  and  to 
prove  their  doctrines  from  the  Holy  Scriptures."  '  Cox's 
own  notable  contribution  to  this  form  of  polemic  was  made 
on  the  occasion  of  the  opening  of  Parliament,  25th  January, 
when  he  seized  the  opportunity  to  make  a  furious  attack 
on  the  Catholic  Church,  whose  clergy,  he  said,  had  caused 
the  martyrdoms  of  Protestants  in  the  previous  reign,  and 
he  called  for  Elizabeth's  vengeance  upon  them.  He  also 
besought  her  to  destroy  images  and  to  root  out  all  popish 
idolatry  and  superstition.2 

II  Schifanoya  mentioned  with  disgust  another  of  these 
"  thunderings  "  which  he  had  attended  the  day  before  he 
wrote.  It  was  delivered  by  Dr.  Scory,  formerly  Bishop  of 
Chichester,  "  who  said  so  much  evil  of  the  Pope,  of  the 
Bishops,  of  the  Prelates,  of  the  regulars,  of  the  Church,  of 
the  Mass,  and  finally  of  our  entire  Faith,  in  the  presence  of 
the  Queen  and  of  her  Council,  the  rest  of  the  congregation 
consisting  of  more  than  5,000  persons,  that  I  was  much 
scandalised,  and  I  promise  never  to  go  there  again,  after 
hearing  the  outrageous  and  extravagant  things  which  they 
say;  and  yet  more  was  I  surprised  at  the  concourse  of 
people  who  madly  flock  to  hear  such  vain  things." 3  Writing 
a  month  later,  he  says :  "  The  Court  preachers  in  the  pre- 
sence of  her  Majesty  and  the  people  are  doing  their  utmost 
to  convert  the  latter,  seeking  to  prove  by  their  false  argu- 
ments that  the  Pope  has  no  authority,  and  uttering  the 
most  base  and  abominable  things  that  were  ever  heard 
against  the  Apostolic  See.  .  .  .  These  cursed  heretics,"  he 
continues,  "who  till  now  have  been  in  Germany,  sow  such 
bad  seed  that,  owing  to  their  sermons  hitherto  in  London 
alone,  there  are  some  ten  sects  of  heretics  utterly  opposed 
one  to  the  other,  .  .  .  Nevertheless,  all  over  London  they 
still  persevere  in  saying  the  Masses  and  divine  service  as 

1  11  Zur.,  p.  16,  No.  7. 

2  Cf.  Venetian  Papers,  Nos.  n  and  12,  25th  January,  1558-9. 

3  Ibid.,  No.  23,  13th  February,  1558-9. 


FIRST  MONTHS  OF  HER  REIGN  31 

formerly,  except  in  the  Chapel  Royal."1  Writing  on  21st 
March,  II  Schifanoya  expresses  his  hatred  for  the  returned 
exiles  in  words  too  uncharitable  for  repetition ;  but  he  en- 
lightened Vivaldino  as  to  the  methods  they  employed  to 
undermine  the  old  Faith,  and  his  remarks  are  instructive. 
"  They  are  clever,  loquacious,  and  fervent,  both  in  preach- 
ing, and  in  composing  and  printing  squibs  and  lampoons, 
or  ballads  as  they  entitle  them,  which  are  sold  publicly,  of 
so  horrible  and  abominable  a  description  that  I  wonder 
their  authors  do  not  perish  by  the  act  of  God.  I  thought  of 
sending  you  a  copy,  but  repented,  not  wishing  to  sow  evil 
seed  in  your  country." 2 

As  another  example  of  the  tendency  to  go  in  advance  of 
the  law,  it  is  interesting  to  note  that  at  Easter,  1559,  as 
II  Schifanoya  wrote  on  Easter  Tuesday,  March  28th,  "  they 
[presumably  the  Council]  had  ordered  and  printed  a  pro- 
clamation for  everyone  to  take  the  Communion  in  both 
kinds  [sub  utraque  specie).  Some  other  reforms  of  theirs  had 
also  been  ordered  for  publication,  but  subsequently  nothing 
else  was  done,  except  that  on  Easter  Day  her  Majesty  ap- 
peared in  Chapel,  where  Mass  was  sung  in  English,  accord- 
ing to  the  use  of  her  brother,  King  Edward,  and  the  Com- 
munion was  received  in  both  kinds,  kneeling  .  .  .  nor  did  he 
[the  celebrant]  wear  anything  but  the  mere  surplice,  having 
divested  himself  of  the  vestments  in  which  he  had  sung 
Mass." 3  The  proclamation  in  question  was  issued  on  22nd 
March,  the  Wednesday  in  Holy  Week,  and  justified  the 
action  on  the  ground  that  "  great  numbers  not  only  of  the 
nobility  and  gentlemen  but  also  of  the  common  people  of 
this  realm  be  persuaded  in  conscience"  that  reception  of 
the  Holy  Communion  under  one  kind  constituted  a  mangled 
Sacrament.4  On  24th  March  the  Spanish  ambassador  wrote 
to  his  Sovereign,  saying  Elizabeth  had  haughtily  asked  if 
the  King  would  be  angry  at  hearing  that  Mass  was  said  in 

1  Venetian  Papers,  No.  40,  14th  March,  1558-9. 

2  Ibid.,  No.  45,  2 1  st  March,  1558-9. 

3  Venetian  Papers,  No.  51,  28th  March,  1559. 

4  Dyson,  Proclamations,  fol.  5. 


32        ELIZABETH'S  ACCESSION  AND  THE 

English?  '  The  attempt,  however,  was  for  the  present  con- 
fined to  the  Easter  celebration,  for  II  Schifanoya  said  that 
"  since  that  day  things  have  returned  to  their  former  state, 
though  ...  a  relapse  is  expected.  .  .  .  Many  persons 
have  received  Communion  in  the  usual  manner,  and  things 
continue  as  usual  in  the  churches."  2  Writing  on  25th  April, 
he  states  that  "  With  regard  to  officiating  and  changing  the 
service  of  the  Church  nothing  more  has  been  done,  but  it  is 
supposed  that  everything  will  return  as  in  the  time  of  King 
Edward  to  the  English  tongue."3  Elizabeth  was  the  de- 
spair of  those  who  hoped  great  things  of  her  as  regards  re- 
formation. A  characteristic  example  is  related  by  II  Schi- 
fanoya in  the  letter  just  quoted  from.  "  Last  Sunday  was 
the  festival  of  St.  George,  patron  ...  of  the  Order  of  the 
Garter,  when  the  knights  of  the  Order  kept  the  feast  as 
usual  with  the  accustomed  ceremonies  and  vestments.  .  .  . 
They  made  the  procession  through  the  whole  Court  in  their 
usual  robes,  not  preceded  by  the  cross,  her  Majesty  being 
present.  .  .  .  It  is  true  that  she  asked  where  the  crosses  were, 
and  was  told  that  being  of  gold  and  silver  they  were  kept 
in  the  Tower.  She  desired  them  to  be  sent  for,  but  as  the 
Tower  was  too  far  off,  and  the  time  late,  they  hastily  sent 
to  Westminster  for  some,  but  found  that  those  had  in  like 
manner  been  removed  for  safety ;  so  without  further  scruple, 
the  procession  was  made  sine  cruce.  .  .  .  On  the  morrow, 
Mass  for  the  Dead  was  sung,  all  the  knights  attending  it, 
and  her  Majesty  was  also  to  have  been  present,  but  she 
changed  her  mind,  objecting  perhaps  to  the  Mass  for  the 
Dead  .  .  .  Mass  for  the  Dead  was  sung  as  usual,  except 
that  they  said  the  Epistle  and  Gospel  in  English,  and  that 
they  did  not  elevate  the  Host  .  .  .  the  priests  having  said 
the  De  Profundis,  they  all  went  to  their  houses,  having 
arranged  among  themselves  the  day  when  they  were  bound 
to  perform  this  solemnity  for  the  dead  at  their  principal 
church    at  Windsor.  .  .  ." i   Writing  on  4th   May,  Paulo 

1  Chron.  Belg.,  No.  cccxxvn,  i,  p.  481,  24th  March,  1558-9. 

2  Venetian  Papers,  No.  51,  ut  supra. 

3  Ibid.,  No.  64,  25th  April,  1559.  4  Ibid. 


FIRST  MONTHS  OF  HER  REIGN  33 

Tiepolo  corroborates  the  above  account  of  II  Schifanoya  in 
every  particular.1  On  10th  May,  Feria  informed  his  royal 
master  that  "  from  Easter  they  were  to  begin  to  say  the 
service  everywhere  in  English,  and  they  have  already  com- 
menced to  do  so  in  the  Queen's  chapel.  They  tell  me 
that  everything  is  worse  even  than  in  the  time  of  King 
Edward." 2 

While  the  Queen  thus  blew  hot  and  cold,  those  who 
wished  her  to  push  forward  the  work  of  reformation,  and 
those  whose  main  aim  was  to  trim  their  sails  according  to 
the  direction  of  the  wind,  knew  hardly  what  to  think  or  what 
to  do.  If,  on  the  one  hand,  Elizabeth  stayed  away  from  a 
Mass  for  the  Dead,  nevertheless  she  was  punctilious  about 
requiring  the  use  of  crosses ;  if  she  favoured  Communion 
under  both  kinds,  she  showed  marked  repugnance  to  allow- 
ing marriage  amongst  the  clergy.  These  contrarieties  and 
inconsistencies  had  perhaps  at  least  the  merit  of  putting  a 
check  upon  too  fiery  zeal  and  preventing  too  hasty  an 
adoption  of  extreme  measures. 

While  these  excesses  were  engaging  men's  attention, 
and  to  some  extent  withdrawing  their  observation  from 
what  was  passing  in  the  political  world  around  them  and 
in  the  Council  Chamber  of  the  Queen,  attempts  were  being 
made  to  come  to  terms  of  peace  with  France.  During  the 
summer  preceding  Mary's  death,  the  representatives  of 
France,  together  with  those  of  the  allied  English  and 
Spanish  monarchs  were  endeavouring  to  find  a  basis  of 
conciliation;  but  no  conclusion  was  arrived  at,  owing  to 
Philip's  insistence  on  the  restitution  of  Calais  to  the 
English.3  On  Elizabeth's  accession,  it  became  the  object  of 
the  French  to  detach  her  from  her  confederacy  with  the 
Spaniard;  but  as  such  a  course  would  have  subjected 
England  to  France,  it  did  not  find  favour  with  the  re- 

1  Venetian  Papers,  No.  69,  4th  May,  1559. 

2  Chron.  Belg.,  No.  CCCXLVi,  i,  p.  519. 

3  See  Cotton  MSS.,  Vespasian  c.  xiii,  No.  125,  f.  414,  for  Cecil's 
(holograph)  mendacious  statement  to  the  exact  contrary,  written  about 
iS7i. 

D 


34       ELIZABETH'S  ACCESSION  AND  THE 

sponsible  ministers.1  The  King  of  Spain's  loyalty  to  Eng- 
lish interests  here  outlined  by  Dr.  Wootton,  finds  frequent 
expression  in  that  statesman's  correspondence.  Philip, 
though  anxious  to  end  a  war  that  was  draining  the  re- 
sources of  his  treasury,  nevertheless  held  out  against  any 
terms  which,  though  acceptable  to  him  personally,  could 
not  be  accepted  by  the  English  without  dishonour.  In 
England,  too,  peace  was  desired,  but  the  national  pride 
could  not  submit  to  the  final  abandonment  of  Calais.  The 
poverty  of  the  Exchequer,  however,  forbade  the  protraction 
of  the  war.  The  envoys  were,  therefore,  at  last  instructed 
to  make  peace  on  the  best  terms  they  could  secure;  these 
were  that  Calais  was  to  be  retained  by  France  for  eight 
years,  and  at  the  expiry  of  that  term  to  be  restored  to 
England ;  but  that  should  any  warlike  attempt  be  made  by 
England  during  the  interval,  that  then  the  English  claim 
should  become  forfeit.  It  was  easy  to  see  that  France 
would  somehow  secure  the  infraction  of  the  treaty,  and  that 
virtually  from  the  moment  of  the  signing  of  peace,  Calais 
was  lost  to  England  for  ever.  These  negociations  are 
referred  to  here  to  show  that  the  Spanish  alliance  had 
hitherto  worked  well  for  England;  and  the  goodwill  of 
Philip  to  this  country  was  displayed  in  a  remarkable  way 
in  the  proposal  made  by  the  Count  de  Feria  that  he  should 
obtain  dispensation  to  marry  Elizabeth,  she  being  his  de- 
ceased wife's  sister.  This  project  was  mooted  as  early  as 
four  days  after  Mary's  death.2    This   scheme  was  not  al- 

1  Thus,  Dr.  Nich.  Wootton,  one  of  the  envoys,  wrote  to  Cecil: 
"  Although  they  [the  French]  require  to  talk  of  peace  and  will  make 
gay  overtures  to  that  intent,  I  cannot  but  remember  that  so  did  the 
wolf  to  the  shepherd  too,  when  he  would  have  had  his  dog  from  him, 
that  made  all  the  debate  betwixt  them  .  .  .  [thinks  the  offers  of  the 
French  are  like  to  the  wolfs]  ...  As  long  as  we  shall  continue  good 
amity  with  the  King  of  Spain,  it  shall  not  be  so  easy  for  the  French  to 
obtain  their  purpose  in  England,  as  they  would  it  were.  If  they  may 
by  crafty  means  and  vain  promises  dissever  us  once  from  Spain,  then 
shall  they  think  they  have  good  cause  to  sing  Io  Paean  "  (Chron.  Belg., 
No.  CCLXXXI,  i,  p.  393,  9th  January,  1558-9). 

2  Chron.  Belg.,  No.  ccxxx,  i,  p.  297,  Count  de  Feria  to  the  King, 
21st  November,  1558. 


FIRST  MONTHS  OF  HER  REIGN  35 

together  displeasing  to  Elizabeth,  though  her  Council  saw 
grave  objections  to  it,  the  chief  one  being  that  it  would 
frustrate  their  plans  for  religious  reform.  Philip,  too,  was 
unwilling  to  proceed  when  he  learnt  of  the  various  steps 
by  which  Elizabeth  was  breaking  with  the  Church.'  Eliza- 
beth, on  her  side,  had  received  these  proposals  favourably, 
saying  she  would  have  to  lay  them  before  Parliament ; 2 
but,  shortly  after,  she  cooled  in  her  attitude  towards  Philip, 
and  gave  the  Count  de  Feria  to  understand  that  she  would 
not  marry  at  all.3 

It  will  be  understood  from  this  necessarily  short  sum- 
mary of  affairs,  how  intimate  were  the  relations  of  King 
Philip's  representative  with  Elizabeth.  The  nature  of 
Philip's  interest  in  England,  as  having  been  co-Sovereign 
with  Mary,  emphasises  the  knowledge  which  the  Count  de 
Feria  must  have  possessed  of  everything  of  importance 
which  was  passing  in  this  kingdom;  and  this  it  is  which 
gives  such  peculiar  value  to  his  reports  of  the  events  of  the 
first  six  months  of  Elizabeth's  reign,  during  which  he  was 
ever  at  her  side  to  exhort,  to  encourage,  to  remonstrate, 
and  to  warn.  He  never  feared  or  hesitated  to  speak  his 
mind  openly  to  her,  and  though  she  sometimes  resented 
the  frankness  of  his  language,  nevertheless,  on  his  de- 
parture, she  expressed  herself  to  Philip  as  fully  cognisant 
of  his  merits.' 

Turning  from  these  foreign  and  personal  concerns  to 
those  of  domestic  importance,  the  first  and  most  moment- 
ous are  connected  with  the  Queen's  coronation,  and  the 
summoning  of  her  first  Parliament. 

The  steps  which  have  already  been  referred  to,  whereby 

1  Chron.  Belg.,  No.  ccxcvm,  i,  p.  417,  Philip  to  Feria,  12th  February, 
1558-9. 

2  Ibid.)  No.  CCLXXXIX,  i,  p.  406,  (?)  20th  January,  1558-9.  Ana- 
lysis only  of  the  letter,  said  to  be  at  Simancas,  but  not  found 
there. 

3  Ibid.)  No.  ccci,  i,  p.  43S,  20th  February,  1558-9.  Count  de  Feria 
to  Philip. 

4  B.M.  MSS.,  Reg.  13,  B.  1,  17th  May,  1559. 


36       ELIZABETH'S  ACCESSION  AND  THE 

the  Queen  plainly  showed  that  she  meant  to  break  with 
the  Church,  determined  the  bishops  to  decline  to  officiate, 
since  it  was  probable  that  if  she  did  not  refuse  to  take  the 
ancient  coronation  oath  to  maintain  the  liberties  of  the 
Church,  she  would  certainly  violate  it  within  a  short 
period.  However,  as  the  Queen  was  not  prepared  at  that 
moment  to  throw  off  the  mask,  and  as  the  act  of  Corona- 
tion carried  with  it  a  very  sacred  pledge  between  Sovereign 
and  subjects  in  the  minds  of  the  bulk  of  the  nation,  it  could 
by  no  means  be  omitted.  Hence  pressure  was  brought  to 
bear  on  the  bishops ;  and  at  last,  Owen  Oglethorpe  of  Carl- 
isle consented  to  perform  the  ceremony  on  condition  that 
the  Roman  Pontifical  was  followed.  No  doubt  he  acted  as 
the  representative  of  his  own  Metropolitan  of  York,  Dr. 
Nicholas  Heath,  to  whom  it  fell  by  prescription  to  conduct 
such  a  ceremony  during  a  vacancy  in  the  primatial  See  of 
Canterbury.1  It  is  of  interest  to  note  that,  as  the  Northern 
prelate  was  not  possessed  of  the  quantity  of  vestments  re- 
quired on  such  rare  occasions,  nor  probably  of  any  of 
sufficiently  costly  nature,  "  The  Lords  [of  the  Privy  Coun- 
cil] sent  to  Bonner,  Bishop  of  London,  to  send  to  the 
Bishop  of  Carlisle,  who  was  appointed  (as  they  writ)  to 
execute  the  solemnity  of  the  Queen's  Majesty's  Coronation, 
universum  apparatum  pontificium,  que  uti  solent  episcopi  in 
Jiujusmodi  magnificis  illustrissimorum  regum  inauguration- 
Urns;  i.e.,  all  the  pontifical  habit  that  bishops  were  wont  to 
use   in   such   glorious    inaugurations    of    most   illustrious 

1  Cardinal  Allen,  commenting  in  after  years  {i.e.,  1584)  on  this 
refusal  of  the  bench  of  bishops  to  officiate,  said :  "  Whose  courage 
and  resistance  for  quarrel  of  God's  religion  was  such  in  them,  and 
especially  in  the  said  Archbishop  [Heath],  that  he  worthily,  as  became 
his  excellency,  refused  to  anoint  or  crown  the  Queen's  Majesty  that 
now  is  .  .  .  and  so  did  all  the  rest  of  the  bishops  refuse  the  same, 
until  with  much  ado  they  obtained  the  Bishop  of  Carlisle,  the  inferior 
almost  of  all  the  rest,  to  do  that  function.  .  .  .  The  cause  why  they 
durst  not  then,  nor  could  be  adduced  by  any  human  fear  or  authority 
to  invest  her  was,  that  they  had  evident  probabilities  and  arguments 
to  doubt  that  she  meant  either  not  to  take  the  oath,  or  not  to  keep  the 
same,  which  all  Christian  kings  (and  specially  ours  in  England)  do 


FIRST  MONTHS  OF  HER  REIGN  37 

kings."1  This  was  on  3rd  January,  1558-9.  Nicholas  San- 
der explained  in  his  Report  to  Cardinal  Moroni  for  what 
reasons  Bishop  Oglethorpe  was  induced  at  length  to  act, 
"  not  as  a  favourer  of  heresy,  but  lest  the  Queen  should  be 
angry  if  no  one  would  anoint  her,  and  be  more  easily 
[moved]  to  overthrow  religion.  Nor  at  this  time  were 
things  so  desperate,  but  that  many  hoped  it  might  still  be 
possible  to  turn  her  from  her  purpose.  The  rest  of  the 
bishops  assisted  at  the  anointing,  until  they  saw  that  part 
of  the  ancient  rite  in  the  celebration  of  the  Mass  was 
changed." '  Lingard  is  clearly  at  fault,  therefore,  when  he 
writes  that  "  the  absence  of  the  prelates  threw  an  unusual 
gloom  over  the  ceremony,"3  for  Sander  wrote  in  1561,  and 
his  statement  is  corroborated  by  Machyn,  who  records: 
"there  [Westminster  Hall]  met  all  the  bishops,  and  all  the 
Chapel  with  three  crosses,  and  in  their  copes,  the  bishops 
mitred,  and  singing  Salve  festa  dies! ' '  Though  Oglethorpe 
performed  the  actual  ceremony  of  coronation  and  anoint- 
ing, it  would  seem  that  he  had  drawn  the  line  at  cele- 
brating Mass,  and  this  is  hinted  at,  though  not  stated,  by 
Sander  in  the  passage  already  quoted.  II  Schifanoya,  how- 
ever, writing  to  the  Castellan  of  Mantua  on  23rd  January, 
1558-9,  after  describing  the  pageants  preceding  the  corona- 
tion, continues:  "And  then  the  choristers  began  the  Mass, 
which  was  sung  by  the  Dean  of  her  Chapel,  her  chaplain 
[Dr.  George  Carew],  the  bishops  not  having  chosen  to  say 
Mass   without   elevating   the   consecrated    Host,3  as  that 

make  in  the  Coronation,  for  maintenance  of  Holy  Church's  laws, 
honours,  place,  and  privileges,  and  other  duties  due  to  every  state,  as 
in  the  time  and  grant  of  King  Edward  the  Confessor.  They  doubted 
also  lest  she  should  refuse,  in  the  very  time  of  her  sacre,  the  solemn 
divine  ceremony  of  unction"  (cf.  True,  Sincere,  Modest  Defence  of 
English  Catholics,  p.  51). 

1  Strype,  Ann.,  i,  29;  Hart.  MS.,  169,  No.  1,  f.  24^. 

2  Cath.  Record  Soc,  vol.  i,  p.  31. 

3  Hist,  of  Engl,  vi,  351.  4  Diary,  p.  187. 

5  The  actual  translation  of  the  Calendar  says  "  without  elevating 
the  Host  or  consecrating  it,"  which  must  be  clearly  due  to  a  misunder- 
standing of  the  Italian  text. 


38        ELIZABETH'S  ACCESSION  AND  THE 

worthy  individual  did ;  the  Epistle  and  Gospel  being  re- 
cited in  English.  After  the  Epistle,  the  Bishop  of  Carlisle 
commenced  the  Coronation  according  to  the  Roman  cere- 
monial, neither  altering  nor  omitting  anything  but  the 
outward  forms.  .  .  ." l  There  exists  an  unintelligent  ac- 
count of  the  ceremony,  evidently  by  an  eye-witness,2  which, 
however,  preserves  one  or  two  particulars  of  interest,  as 
that  the  Epistle  and  Gospel  were  read  both  in  Latin  and 
in  English,  just  as  those  portions  are  chanted  both  in 
Greek  and  in  Latin  at  a  papal  Mass.  This  observer,  more- 
over, makes  mention  of  a  sermon,  and  records  the  fact  of 
the  corporal  homage  made  to  the  Queen  by  the  bishops 
who  were  present.  "  And  then  the  Lords  went  up  to  her 
Grace  kneeling  upon  their  knees,  and  kissed  her  Grace. 
And  after  the  Lords  had  done,  the  Bishops  came  one 
after  another  kneeling,  and  kissed  her  grace."  II  Schifa- 
noya  pointed  out 3  that  the  return  to  Westminster  Abbey 
was  made  "  in  the  same  order  as  at  first,  except  that  the 
bishops  remained  in  the  Abbey."  This  would  seem  to 
endorse  the  statement  of  Sander  that  they  retired  finally 
from  the  function,  when  they  realised  that  Dr.  Carew  was 
conforming  himself  to  the  alterations  in  the  ceremonies 
of  the  Mass  which  the  Queen  had  enjoined  at  Christmas 
time. 

The  next  and  all-important  step  in  the  work  of  breaking 
with  Rome  was  to  be  taken  in  Parliament.  That  assembly, 
therefore,  becomes  the  point  of  interest  for  the  next  three 
months.  The  indications  of  coming  change  already  referred 
to  aroused  great  fears  in  the  minds  of  the  Catholics  as  to 
what  enactments  would  there  be  made;  and  the  manner  of 
opening  her  first  Parliament  by  Queen  Elizabeth  did  not 
tend  to  allay  them.    The  Lords  and  Commons  had  been 

1  Venetian  Papers,  No.  10. 

2  P.R.O.  Dom.  Add.  Eliz.,  ix,  No.  9.  This  contemporary  transcript 
"from  Mr.  Anthony  Anthony's  Collection,"  is  identical  with  that 
published  in  Nichols's  Progresses  of  Q.  Elizabeth,  and  is  taken  from 
Ashmole  MS.  863,  f.  an. 

3  Venetian  Papers,  No.  10. 


FIRST  MONTHS  OF  HER  REIGN  39 

summoned  to  appear  at  Westminster  on  23rd  January;  but 
at  the  last  moment  the  date  of  assembly  was,  owing  to  the 
Queen's  indisposition,  altered  to  the  25th.  On  that  day, 
according  to  II  Schifanoya,  the  members  of  both  Houses 
"  went  to  the  place  appointed  them,  and  awaited  the  arrival 
of  her  Majesty  at  the  church  as  usual  for  the  Mass  of  the 
Holy  Ghost,  which  custom  was  not  observed  this  year,  the 
Mass  having  been  sung  at  an  early  hour  in  Westminster 
Abbey,  without  elevating  the  sacrament,  as  is  done  in  the 
Chapel  Royal."  In  the  afternoon,  the  Queen  proceeded  to 
the  Abbey,  where  "  the  Abbot,  robed  pontifically,  with  all 
his  monks  in  procession,  each  of  them  having  a  lighted 
torch  in  his  hand,  received  her  as  usual,  offering  her  first 
of  all  incense  and  holy  water;  and  when  her  Majesty  saw 
the  monks,  who  accompanied  her  with  the  torches,  she 
said :  '  Away  with  those  torches,  for  we  see  very  well ' ;  and 
her  choristers  singing  the  Litany  in  English,  she  was  ac- 
companied to  the  High  Altar  under  her  canopy.  There- 
upon Dr.  Cox,  a  married  priest  .  .  .  preached  the  sermon, 
in  which  after  saying  many  things  freely  against  the  monks, 
proving  by  his  arguments  that  they  ought  to  be  persecuted 
and  punished,  .  .  .  exhorting  her  [the  Queen]  to  destroy  the 
images  of  the  Saints,  the  churches,  the  monasteries,  and 
all  other  things  dedicated  to  divine  worship;  proving  .  .  . 
that  it  is  very  great  impiety  and  idolatry  to  endure  them; 
and  saying  many  other  things  against  the  Christian 
religion." *  The  Count  de  Feria  told  his  royal  master  much 
the  same  thing  in  his  despatch  of  31st  January,*  pointing 
out  that  it  was  expected  that  three  matters  would  prin- 
cipally occupy  the  attention  of  Parliament  during  the 
forthcoming  session.  The  first  would  be  to  effect  a  change 
of  religion;  the  second,  to  repeal  the  legislation  of  the  late 
Queen;  and  the  last,  the  granting  of  a  subsidy.  The  de- 
tails of  what  took  place  in  that  assembly  may  be  left  to  a 
separate  chapter;  but  the  concurrent  action  of  the  Third 
Estate  may  be  briefly  summarised  here. 

1  Venetian  Papers,  No.  15,  30th  January,  1558-9. 

2  Citron.  Be/g.,  No.  ccxcv,  i,  p.  413. 


4o       ELIZABETH'S  ACCESSION  AND  THE 

At  that  period,  Convocation  as  usual  met  at  the  same 
time  as  Parliament,  although,  owing  to  the  delay  already  re- 
ferred to,  it  assembled  on  that  occasion  one  day  in  advance. 
Little  came  of  the  meeting,  except  for  the  presentation 
which  the  Lower  House  made  to  the  bishops  of  certain 
articles  embracing  the  chief  points  in  dispute  between 
Rome  and  the  Reformed  Churches,  wherein  they  declared 
their  firm  adhesion  to  Rome.  The  bishops,  as  requested, 
handed  them  on  through  Bishop  Bonner  to  Sir  Nicholas 
Bacon, the  Lord  Keeper;  and  that  was  the  last  that  was  heard 
of  them.  These  articles,  however,  are  of  importance,  for  as 
Mr.  Child  says:1  "it  is  a  fact  to  which  modern  historians 
of  the  English  Church  do  not  frequently  draw  attention, 
that  the  only  Convocation  during  the  earlier  Reformation 
period  which  was  evidently  elected  without  any  pressure 
from  the  Government,  and  was  the  freely-chosen  repre- 
sentative of  the  clergy  of  England,  should  thus  have  de- 
clared its  opinion,  to  all  appearance  unanimously,  in  favour 
of  the  Roman  faith  and  the  Roman  obedience.  'It  is  idle 
to  pretend  that  this  was  not,  as  fully  as  any  other  Convoca- 
tion, a  fair  representative  body.  On  the  other  hand,  its 
out-and-out  opposition  to  the  Oueen  and  the  Government 
of  the  day  prove  plainly  that  it  was  so."  Now,  it  is  well  to 
bear  in  mind  that  this  last  declaration  of  a  "  fair  repre- 
sentative body "  made  known  its  belief  in  the  Real  Pres- 
ence, in  Transubstantiation,  in  the  Sacrifice  of  the  Mass,  in 
the  Pope's  spiritual  Supremacy,  and  put  it  on  record  that 
the  decision  on  matters  of  doctrine,  on  the  sacraments  or 
discipline,  belonged,  not  to  a  lay  assembly  like  Parliament, 
but  to  the  lawful  episcopate.2  These  articles  were,  with 
the  exception  of  the  last,  also  agreed  to  by  the  two  Uni- 
versities. As  will  be  seen  later,  this  uncompromising  oppo- 
sition of  the  clergy,  calculated  to  defeat  the  projects  of 
Elizabeth's  advisers,  was  countered  by  the  ingenious  device 
of  resorting  to  a  public  disputation.  For  it  must  be  borne 
in  mind  that  this  statement  or  confession  was  not  drawn 

1  Church  and  State  under  the  Tudors,  p.  1 80. 

2  Cf.  Wilkins's  Concilia,  iv,  p.  1 79. 


FIRST  MONTHS  OF  HER  REIGN  41 

up  independently  of  what  was  passing  in  Parliament,  but 
after  the  introduction  of  the  Bill  of  Supremacy  showing 
what  was  the  purpose  of  the  Government,  and  was  there- 
fore in  direct  defiance  of  the  Queen  and  her  Council  and 
of  Parliament.  It  is  this  that  gives  the  action  of  Con- 
vocation its  special  value. 

Note. — The  name  "  II  Schifanoya,"  so  frequently  recurring  in  the 
foregoing  pages,  requires  perhaps  a  word  of  explanation.  Mr.  G. 
Cavendish  Bentinck,  the  writer  of  the  preface  to  vol.  vii  of  the  Calendar 
of  State  Papers  and  Manuscripts  existing  in  the  Archives  and  Collec- 
tions of  Venice,  says  that  the  letters  from  which  so  many  quotations 
have  been  made  were  "addressed  by  an  individual  signing  himself '  II 
Schifanoya,'  to  the  Mantuan  Ambassador  and  the  Mantuan  Secretary 
resident  at  the  Court  of  Brussels,  and  also  to  the  Castellan  or  Governor 
of  the  City  of  Mantua.  Mr.  Rawdon  Brown  always  believed  that  the 
designation  of '  II  Schifanoya,'  which  in  English  signifies  a  lazy,  idle 
fellow,  was  an  assumed  name;  but,  as  I  could  see  no  reason  why  'II 
Schifanoya'  should  have  desired  to  conceal  his  identity,  I  obtained, 
through  the  kind  intervention  of  the  late  Commendatore  Bartolomeo 
Cocchetti,  Director  of  the  Venetian  Archives,  a  communication  from 
the  Cavaliere  Antonio  Bertoletti,  Director  of  the  State  Archives  of 
Mantua,  and  Signor  Davari,  Keeper  of  the  Gonzaga  Archives  at  Mantua, 
who  gave  their  joint  opinion  that  '  II  Schifanoya'  or  '  Schifenoia'  was 
the  true  name  of  the  writer;  firstly,  because  there  is  in  the  province  of 
Mantua  a  small  district  now  called  '  Schifenoglia,'  but  described  in 
ancient  documents  as  'Schifenoia';  and,  secondly,  because  during  the 
fifteenth  and  sixteenth  centuries,  several  Mantuans  of  note  bore  the 
name  of  '  Schifenoia '  and  '  Schifenoia,'  to  one  of  whom,  the  most 
reverend  Don  Luigi  Schifenoia,  the  Duke  of  Mantua  is  recorded  to 
have  given  a  recommendation  to  the  Imperial  Court  in  1563,  and  this 
personage  is  mentioned  to  have  been  alive  in  1565. 

"  II  Schifanoya  [probably  identical  with  Don  Luigi]  .  .  .  was  in  the 
service  of  Sir  Thomas  Tresham,  the  Prior  of  the  Order  of  St.  John  of 
Jerusalem  in  England,  and  was  apparently  himself  a  member  of  that 
Order.  Sir  Thomas  Tresham  died  on  8th  March,  1558-9,  and  the  house 
of  the  Priory  and  the  property  belonging  to  it  having  been  seized  by 
order  of  the  Crown,  II  Schifanoya  went  to  reside  with  Monsignor 
Priuli,  the  intimate  friend  and  testamentary  executor  of  Cardinal 
Pole." 


CHAPTER  II 

ELIZABETH'S  FIRST  PARLIAMENT 

ONE  point  stands  out  clearly  and  distinctly  in  the 
record  of  religious  change  in  Elizabeth's  reign.  Every 
move  away  from  Rome  was  carefully  legalised  by  sanction 
of  Parliament. 

Although  it  was  impossible,  for  many  reasons,  that 
Elizabeth  could  accept  the  Supremacy  of  the  Roman  See, 
yet  she  did  not  cast  it  off  except  by  Act  of  Parliament. 
The  religious  innovations  effected  in  her  reign  were  each 
and  all  made  binding  on  her  subjects  by  Act  of  Parlia- 
ment.1 The  "  Church  of  England  as  by  Law  Established  " 
is  an  apt  and  an  accurate  definition  of  the  ecclesiastical 
body  evolved  from  the  polity  of  Elizabeth's  first  Parlia- 
ment. The  legislation  of  that  Parliament  is  therefore  of 
prime  importance,  marking  as  it  does  each  successive  step 
whereby  Mary's  work  of  reconciliation  with  Rome  was 
undone,  and  displaying  the  whole  process  whereby  the  fabric 
of  the  national  Church  as  we  know  it  at  this  day  was  built 
up.  Whether  we  accept  this  settlement  or  whether  we  con- 
demn it  is  nothing  to  the  point.  It  is  not  a  matter  of  pre- 
dilections; the  historical  student  has  to  concern  himself 
merely  with  the  facts,  and  with  the  results  which  are  the 
outcome  of  a  given  series  of  facts.  Judgment  on  them 
may  be  favourable  or  adverse;    but  such  judgment  will 

1  Cf.  I  Zur.,  No.  6,  Jewel  to  Peter  Martyr,  14th  April,  1559:  "But 
this  woman,  excellent  as  she  is,  and  earnest  in  the  cause  of  true 
religion,  notwithstanding  she  desires  a  thorough  change  as  early  as 
possible,  cannot  however  be  induced  to  effect  such  change  without  the 
sanction  of  law. 

42 


Emery  II  'a  Iker  pilot '<>.  ] 


[National  Portrait  Gallery 


SIR  WILLIAM  CECIL 

AFTERWARDS 

LORD  BURGH LEV 

LORD  TREASURER 


ELIZABETH'S  FIRST  PARLIAMENT         43 

not  alter  the  facts  themselves  or  their  interconnection. 
Accompanying  circumstances  may  have  an  important  bear- 
ing on  the  trend  of  events,  and  the  study  of  them  may 
influence  the  standpoint  from  which  the  facts  are  viewed ; 
but  an  appeal  can  always  be  made  to  the  safe  dictum  that 
facts  speak  for  themselves,  and  rarely  suffer  themselves  to 
be  explained  away. 

The  historical  enquirer,  then,  may  safely  watch  the  de- 
velopment of  the  national  Church  in  the  debates  and 
divisions  of  Elizabeth's  first  Parliament,  since  it  is  there 
that  it  took  its  rise  and  its  shape,  and  not  in  the  studies 
of  churchmen  nor  in  the  deliberations  of  Convocation. 

It  follows  that  the  shaping  of  the  national  Church  is 
largely,  nay  mainly,  the  outcome  of  the  work  of  laymen. 
Indeed,  as  will  be  seen,  churchmen  of  the  Old  Learning 
strenuously  opposed  its  formation  from  first  to  last;  and 
it  had  taken  definite  shape  before  any  single  churchman 
of  the  New  Learning  had  gained  place  or  power  to  exercise 
influence  or  control  over  its  development,  except  in  so  far 
as  influence  might  have  been,  and  undoubtedly  was,  exerted 
over  individual  members  of  Parliament  by  those  who,  hold- 
ing no  office,  could  impose  their  desires  on  others  only 
unofficially  and  ab  extra. 

In  order  the  better  to  understand  what  took  place  in 
this  momentous  Parliament,  it  will  be  necessary  to  study 
somewhat  closely  the  personnel  of  the  legislative  body 
assembled  at  Westminster  two  months  after  Elizabeth's 
accession. 

The  House  of  Lords  consisted,  then  as  now,  of  spiritual 
and  temporal  peers ;  but  the  proportion  between  these  con- 
stituent elements  was  markedly  different  from  what  it  is 
now,  though  in  Elizabeth's  reign  it  also  differed  greatly 
from  what  had  been  customary  before  Henry  VI IPs  re- 
pudiation of  Roman  Supremacy,  and  before  the  suppression 
of  the  religious  houses. 

Before  the  great  breach  with  Rome  in  1535  and  the 
suppressions  completed  in  1539,  the  temporal  peers,  never 
numerous,  had  been,  since  the  Wars  of  the  Roses,  still 


44         ELIZABETH'S  FIRST  PARLIAMENT 

fewer  in  number.  But  the  spiritual  peers,  who  were  sum- 
moned to  aid  their  Sovereigns  in  council,  formed  a  large 
and  compact  body  greatly  outnumbering  their  lay  asso- 
ciates. With  the  downfall  of  the  great  abbeys  and  the 
consequent  disappearance  from  Parliament  of  their  mitred 
superiors,  the  ecclesiastical  element  of  the  Upper  House 
had  been  reduced  to  the  diocesan  bishops,  twenty-five  in 
number  in  England  and  Wales.  After  Mary's  restoration 
of  Westminster  Abbey,  the  Abbot  of  that  ancient  founda- 
tion resumed  his  place  in  the  House  of  Lords;  so  that,  on 
Elizabeth's  accession,  a  possible  attendance  of  twenty-six 
churchmen  might  have  been  counted  upon.  But  during 
the  last  months  of  Mary's  reign  several  Sees  fell  vacant, 
and  by  some  mischance  they  had  not  been  filled  up  by 
Cardinal  Pole  before  his  royal  kinswoman  died.  This  over- 
sight was  bitterly  felt  at  the  time,  and  found  strong  ex- 
pressions in  one  of  Bishop  Alvaro  de  Quadra's  letters.1 
Add  to  this  a  remarkable  mortality  amongst  the  bishops 
between  Elizabeth's  accession  and  the  opening  of  her  first 
Parliament,  which  had  so  thinned  their  ranks,  that  ten 
Sees  were  unrepresented  in  the  House  of  Lords.'2 

The  Bishops  of  Lincoln  (Watson)  and  of  St.  Asaph's 
(Goldwell)  were  absent  through  ill-health,  and  were  unre- 
presented by  proxies.  Goldwell  had,  in  December,  1558, 
asked,  through  Secretary  Cecil,  for  leave  to  absent  himself; 
but  in  the  letter  conveying  his  request,  he  states  that  he 
had  not  received  a  writ  of  summons.    "  I  am  so  bold,"  he 

1  About  10th  March,  1558-9,  Chron.  Belg.,  No.  cccxv,  i,  p.  464. 
Feria,  writing  to  Philip  on  20th  February,  1558-9,  said:  "  That  accursed 
Cardinal  left  12  bishoprics  to  be  filled,  which  will  now  be  given  to  as 
many  ministers  of  Lucifer  instead  of  being  worthily  bestowed"  {Ibid., 
No.  CCCI,  i,  p.  442). 

2  These  were:  Canterbury,  Pole  (t  17th  November,  1558);  Salisbury, 
Salcot  or  Capon  (t  7th  September,  1557);  Oxford,  King  (t  4th  Dec- 
ember, 1557);  Bangor,  Glynn  (t2ist  May,  1558);  Gloucester,  Brooks 
(t7th  September,  1558);  Hereford,  Parfew  or  Wharton  (t  22nd  Sept- 
ember, 1558);  Rochester,  Griffin  (t20th  November,  1558);  Bristol, 
Holyman  (t  20th  December,  1558)  ;  Chichester,  Christopherson 
(t  December,  1558);  Norwich,  Hopton  (t  December,  1558). 


ELIZABETH'S  FIRST  PARLIAMENT         45 

said,  "  as  by  writing  to  desire  you  to  show  me  so  much 
favour  that  by  your  Lordship  I  may  have  licence  to  depart 
hence,  considering  my  poverty  and  that  I  am  not  by  the 
Queen's  Highness'  writ  called  to  be  present  at  the  Parlia- 
ment, for  the  which  1  am  nothing  sorry,  though,  indeed,  it 
seemeth  somewhat  strange  unto  me,  for  I  am  still  Bishop 
of  St.  Asaph,  the  which  bishopric  I  never  did  nor  could 
resign.  And  as  Bishop  of  St.  Asaph  I  was  present  and 
gave  my  voice  in  the  last  Parliament."  l  Six  other  bishops 
were  absent,  but  were  represented  by  proxies.  Thirlby 
of  Ely  was  at  that  time  employed  abroad  on  embassy. 
He  returned  to  England  before  the  close  of  the  session, 
and  attended  the  final  debates,  joining  the  intrepid  band 
of  opponents  of  innovation.  The  aged  Cuthbert  Tunstall, 
Bishop  of  Durham,  had  written  to  know  the  Queen's 
pleasure  in  his  regard;  and  she,  in  consideration  of  his 
advanced  years,  dispensed  with  his  attendance  either  at 
her  Coronation  or  in  his  place  in  the  Upper  House,  but 
directed  him  to  appoint  his  proxy.2  David  Poole  of  Peter- 
borough wrote  on  28th  December,  1558,  asking  Cecil  to 
procure  Elizabeth's  permission  for  him  to  absent  himself, 
on  the  plea  that  his  physicians  feared  the  wintry  weather 
might  render  him  "  likely  to  fall  either  to  consumption  or 
a  quartan  ague,"  either  of  which  might  prove  mortal  to 
him  at  his  age.3  Bourne  of  Bath  and  Wells,  Morgan  of 
St.  David's,  and  Sir  Thomas  Tresham,  Prior  of  St.  John 
of  Jerusalem,  were  also  absent  from  various  unrecorded 
reasons.4   Thus  it  happened  that  for  the  whole  of  the  ses- 

1  P.R.O.  Dom.  Eliz.,  I,  No.  52,  December,  1558.  The  meaning  of 
GoldwelFs  reference  to  his  being  '■'■still  Bishop  of  St.  Asaph  "  is  that  he 
had  been  offered  translation  to  the  See  of  Oxford  by  Queen  Mary,  but 
had  refused,  and  evidently  after  that  had  voted  in  Parliament  as 
Bishop  of  St.  Asaph ;  hence  he  was  entitled  to  a  writ  of  summons  for 
that  See. 

2  Ibid.,  1,  No.  37,  19th  December,  1558. 

3  Ibid.,  1,  No.  48. 

4  Mr.  Frere,  in  his  Hist,  of  the  Engl.  Church  in  the  reigns  of  Eliz. 
and  fas.  I,  p.  1 5,  says  of  the  Prior  of  St.  John  of  Jerusalem  that "  it  would 
seem  that  his  proxy  was  refused  and  his  membership  of  the  House 


46         ELIZABETH'S  FIRST  PARLIAMENT 

sion  fifteen,  and  for  the  greater  portion  of  it  sixteen,  of  the 
votes  that  would  most  certainly  have  been  cast  on  the 
Catholic  side  were  lost.  Only  ten  prelates  assisted  at  the 
debates;  and,  though  they  could  not  avert  the  catastrophe 
they  so  manfully  strove  against,  they  earned  for  them- 
selves, by  reason  of  the  intrepidity  they  showed,  the  re- 
spectful admiration  even  of  their  adversaries.  These  ten 
were  Nicholas  Heath,  Archbishop  of  York;  Edmund 
Bonner,  Bishop  of  London;  John  White  of  Winchester; 
Richard  Pate  of  Worcester ;  Anthony  Kitchin  or  Dunston 
of  Llandaff;  Ralph  Bayne  of  Coventry  and  Lichfield; 
James  Turberville  of  Exeter;  Cuthbert  Scott  of  Chester; 
Owen  Oglethorpe  of  Carlisle,  who  had  so  recently  crowned 
the  Queen;  and  Dr.  Feckenham,  Abbot  of  Westminster. 
To  these  was  added,  after  17th  April,  1559,  Thirlby  of 
Ely. 

The  lists  of  the  House  of  Lords  give  81  names  of  peers, 
spiritual  and  temporal,  who  had  a  right  to  sit  during  any 
portion  of  this  Parliament.  Of  these,  17  were  strictly 
spiritual,  and  63  were  lay  peers.  Sir  Thomas  Tresham 
may,  however,  be  omitted  once  for  all,  who  otherwise 
would,  by  reason  of  the  title  by  which  he  sat,  have  ranked 
amongst  the  spiritual  peers,  raising  their  number  to  18.  It 
is  almost  superfluous  to  point  out  that  the  spiritual  peers 
were  throughout,  as  shown  by  the  voting,  frankly  papist 
in  their  sympathies.  Of  the  63  temporal  peers,  20  were 
ostensibly  as  certainly  Catholic  to  the  core  as  were  the 
bishops.  These  were  the  Marquesses  of  Winchester  and 
Northampton;  the  Earls  of  Arundel,  Pembroke,  Northum- 
berland, Westmoreland,  Shrewsbury,  Worcester,  Cumber- 
land, and  Hertford ;  Viscount  Montague;  and  Lords  Morley, 
Dacre  of  Gilsland,  Lumley,  Latimer,  Vaux  of  Harrowden, 
Windsor,  Wharton,  Rich,  and  Hastings  of  Loughborough. 

disallowed."  There  does  not  seem  to  be  any  proof  of  this  statement ; 
but  the  point  is  one  of  little  consequence,  for  Sir  Thomas  Tresham 
died  on  8th  March,  1558-9  (cf.  Venetian  Papers,  No.  40,  14th  March, 
1558-9),  when  the  proxy  would  naturally  have  lapsed,  and  hence  no 
crucial  voting  was  affected  by  it. 


ELIZABETH'S  FIRST  PARLIAMENT         47 

This  at  first  sight  represents  a  solid  Catholic  vote  of  37. 
On  the  reforming  side  certain  members  of  the  Upper 
House  of  course  stand  prominently  forward.  Such  are  Sir 
Nicholas  Bacon,  Lord  Keeper  of  the  Privy  Seal;  the  Duke 
of  Norfolk;  the  Earls  of  Rutland,  Huntingdon,  Bedford, 
and  Sussex ;  and  Lord  Clynton.1  To  these  should  be  added 
the  five  new  peers  created  by  Elizabeth  at  her  Coronation 
and  summoned  to  her  first  Parliament,  all  of  whom  were 
staunch  upholders  of  the  new  opinions.  These  were  Vis- 
count Howard  of  Bindon,  Lord  Hastings,  Lord  Darcy  of 
Darcy,  Lord  Cary  of  Hunsdon,  and  Lord  Oliver  St.  John 
of  Bletsho.  To  this  solid  phalanx  of  twelve  should  be  joined 
nine  others  of  whose  Protestantism  there  can  be  no  reason- 
able doubt,  though  they  do  not  stand  prominently  forward 
as  leaders,  at  least  at  the  time  in  question.  They  are  the 
Earl  of  Oxford,  and  Lords  Grey  of  Wilton,  Dudley,  Went- 
worth,  Mordaunt,  Sheffield,  Williams  of  Thame,  North,  and 
Chandos.  Another  section  of  the  Upper  House  consisted 
of  those  whose  religious  opinions  cannot  be  accurately 
gauged ;  at  one  time  evidence  seems  to  point  to  their  being 
Catholics,  at  another  it  as  distinctly  marks  them  out  as 
conforming  to  the  new  order.  These  "  trimmers,"  as  they 
may  be  called,  were  the  Earl  of  Derby,  together  with  Lords 
Howard  of  Effingham,  Stafford,  Scrope,  Latimer,  Sandes, 
and  Paget.  A  residue  still  remains  concerning  whom  no- 
thing can  be  affirmed  one  way  or  the  other  at  the  date 
indicated.  That  most,  if  not  all  of  them,  conformed  in 
process  of  time  need  not  necessarily  oblige  us  to  infer  that 
in  1559  all  or  any  were  other  than  Catholic.  These  were 
the  Earl  of  Bath,  and  Lords  Abergavenny,  Audley,  Strange, 

1  "  The  Catholics  are  very  fearful  as  to  the  conclusion  they  will 
come  to  in  this  Parliament.  Of  those  in  the  Council,  Cecil  and  the 
Earl  of  Bedford  are  those  who  busy  themselves  most  to  destroy  this 
[i.e.,  religion],  and  of  those  outside  [the  Council],  the  Earl  of  Sussex 
does  what  he  can"  (Feria  to  Philip,  31st  January,  1558-9,  Chron.  Belg., 
No.  ccxcv,  i,  p.  413).  "The  Earl  of  Sussex  is  he  who  most  signalised 
himself  as  a  thorough  villain,  such  as  I  have  always  thought  him  to 
be,  for  he  never  deceived  me"  (Feria  to  Philip,  19th  March,  1558-9, 
Chron,  Belg.,  No.  cccxxn,  i,  p.  475). 


48         ELIZABETH'S  FIRST  PARLIAMENT 

Zouche,  Berkeley,  Cobham,1  Talbot,  Mountjoy,  Ogle, 
Mounteagle,  Burgh,  St.  John,  Evers,  Willoughby,  and 
Darcy  of  Chechie.  This  gives  point  to  a  memorandum  by 
the  Bishop  of  Aquila,  in  which  he  estimated  the  opposing 
forces  as  follows:  "  Amongst  the  nobility,  all  those  of  little 
estimation,  and  the  greater  part  of  those  advanced  in  age, 
are  given  over  to  heresy.  .  .  .  There  are  also  many  heretics 
in  London,  in  the  sea-ports,  and  in  the  county  of  Kent.  All 
the  rest  of  the  nation,  it  is  said,  are  steadfast  and  one  in 
faith  with  the  handful  of  bishops,  so  that  reckoning  them 
all  together,  the  Catholics  are  in  the  majority." '  To  sum 
up  the  opposing  forces:  there  were  37  solidly  Catholic 
peers  as  against  21  as  decidedly  Protestant.  The  7  "trim- 
mers" and  16  who  form  the  "unknown  quantity" — 23  in 
all — complete  the  entire  81  who  then  constituted  the  Upper 
House.3 

If  these  figures  be  examined  closely,  the  explanation 
of  the  results  of  this  Parliament  will  be  more  apparent. 
If  the  24  "trimmers"  be  divided  equally  between  the 
opposing  camps,  there  would  be  49  Catholics  against  32 
Protestants.    But   as    has    already  been    pointed   out,  the 

1  The  Count  de  Feria  in  a  letter  to  King  Philip,  speaking  of  Lord 
Cobham,  said:  "This  man  held  no  office  in  the  household  of  the 
Queen  [Mary],  nor  had  he  nor  his  brothers  a  good  reputation  here, 
because  they  have  always  been  declared  followers  of  the  new  Queen, 
and  she  liked  him  well "  (cf.  Chron.  Belg.,  No.  CCXXXVI,  i,  p.  307). 
The  inference  is  that  he  was  a  reformer. 

-  Chron.  Belg.,  No.  cccxv,  i,  p.  464,  about  10th  March,  1558-9. 

3  Froude,  Hist,  of  Engl.,  vii,  p.  40,  makes  a  slightly  different  calcula- 
tion :  "  Four  new  peers  had  been  created  at  the  coronation.  The 
Earldom  of  Hertford  was  revived  in  favour  of  Edward  Seymour,  son 
of  the  Protector.  Lord  Thomas  Howard,  Surrey's  younger  brother, 
was  made  Lord  Howard  of  Bindon.  Sir  Henry  Cary,  the  Queen's 
cousin,  became  Lord  Hunsdon ;  and  Sir  Oliver  St.  John  was  created 
Baron  St.  John  of  Bletsho.  Including  these,  the  lay  peerage  of  England 
consisted  but  of  61  persons,  of  whom  it  is  to  be  observed  that  18  were 
either  unable  or  unwilling  to  appear  at  Elizabeth's  first  Parliament, 
while  12  who  were  present  at  the  opening  very  soon  discontinued  their 
attendance.  Their  proxies  for  the  most  part  were  held  by  Bedford  and 
Clynton,  and  their  votes,  therefore,  were  given  to  the  Government." 


ELIZABETH'S  FIRST  PARLIAMENT         49 

entire  voting  strength  of  the  81  peers  was,  for  one  reason 
or  another,  never  available;  several  deductions  have  there- 
fore to  be  made  from  the  strength  of  both  parties.  To  deal 
first  with  the  Catholics:  of  the  sixteen  bishops,  never  more 
than  ten  were  ever  present,  but  five  had  entrusted  their 
proxies  to  the  safe  hands  of  Archbishop  Heath,  the  pro- 
tagonist of  the  Catholic  cause.  Before  the  session  ended, 
however,  White,  of  Winchester,  and  Watson,  of  Lincoln, 
found  themselves  in  the  Tower  of  London,  to  which  they 
were  committed  on  the  ist  of  April,  and  thenceforth  their 
support  was  entirely  lost,  as  they  had  not  taken  the  pre- 
caution to  appoint  proxies.1  Goldwell,  of  St.  Asaph's,  was 
also  unrepresented  by  proxy,  presumably  as  he  had  not 
received  the  writ  of  summons,  for  which  reason  also  he  was 
not  present  throughout  the  entire  session. 

An  investigation  of  the  appointment  of  proxies  dis- 
closes a  singular  anomaly,  for  Protestants  and  Catholics 
in  some  cases  selected  religious  opponents  to  represent 
them  in  their  absence.  Thus,  Lord  Windsor,  a  Catholic, 
gave  his  proxy  to  Lord  Clynton,  an  advanced  Protestant, 
while  Lord  Mordaunt,  a  Protestant,  entrusted  his  vote  to 
the  Earl  of  Arundel,  nominally  at  least,  a  Catholic,  who 
acted  for  him  in  divisions  on  the  religious  debates  on  two 
occasions;  the  Earl  of  Bedford,  however,  also  employed 
his  vote  on  two  other  days.  The  case  of  the  Earl  of 
Arundel  calls  for  further  explanation.  He  was,  for  in- 
stance, the  Earl  of  Northumberland's  proxy;  but  it  is 
clear  that  for  personal  motives  he  was  false  to  his  trust  as 
a  Catholic,  "won  over  by  the  expectation  of  marrying  the 
Queen,  held  out  to  him  by  Elizabeth  herself,"  according  to 
Rishton,  the  continuator  of  Sander,2  and  thus  used  a 
Catholic  vote  as  well  as  his  own  to  overturn  his  own 
Church;  for  Northumberland  was  ordered  to  stay  in  the 

1  "  Your  friend  White,  Bishop  of  Winchester,  and  Watson,  Bishop 
of  Lincoln,  were  committed  to  the  Tower  for  open  contempt  and  con- 
tumacy "  (cf.  I  Zur.,  p.  16,  No.  5,  Jewel  to  Peter  Martyr,  6th  April, 

1559)- 
'2  Rise  and  Growth  of  the  Anglican  Schism,  ed.  1877,  p.  255. 
E 


50         ELIZABETH'S  FIRST  PARLIAMENT 

North  on  Scottish  business,  and  as  Warden  of  the  Marches.1 
Since  his  lieutenants  could  have  acted  under  his  instruc- 
tions during  his  absence,  his  being  kept  thus  at  a  distance 
leaves  the  impression  that  the  Council  availed  themselves 
of  the  pretext  of  public  business  to  rid  themselves  of  a 
staunch  opponent.  Indeed,  Feria  told  Philip  that  "the 
Queen  has  entire  disposal  of  the  Upper  Chamber  in  a  way 
never  seen  before  in  previous  Parliaments."  2  The  Earl  of 
Cumberland  was  represented  once  at  least  by  a  Protestant. 
Even  after  the  policy  of  the  Government  could  no  longer 
be  mistaken,  Lord  Morley,  a  particularly  staunch  Catholic, 
appointed,  on  18th  March,  the  Earl  of  Bedford,  as  staunch 
a  Protestant,  as  his  proxy,  though,  as  events  proved,  he 
never  gave  him  the  occasion  to  exercise  the  trust,  being 
himself  invariably  present  Lord  Vaux  of  Harrowden,  too, 
selected  the  Earl  of  Bedford  to  represent  him,  who  did  so 
on  at  least  two  crucial  divisions,  those  of  18th  and  24th 
March,  and  probably  also  during  the  fateful  closing  days 
of  the  session.  Lord  Wharton  was  another  of  the  Catholic 
group  represented  by  a  Protestant,  Lord  North,  who  voted 
in  his  stead  certainly  on  four  occasions,  probably  more. 
These  instances  alone  mean  a  distinct  loss  of  eight  votes 
to  the  Catholic  side,  four  counting  eight  on  a  division. 
The  Marquess  of  Northampton,  who  appointed  no  proxy, 
and  whose  attendance  was  spasmodic,  failed  to  render  his 
support  on  some  of  the  occasions  when  it  would  have 
proved  useful ;  the  same  may  be  said  of  the  Earl  of  West- 
moreland during  the  later  part  of  the  session.  The  Earl 
of  Hertford  did  not  attend  Parliament  till  4th  April,  nor 
had  he  appointed  a  proxy.  Lord  Hastings  of  Lough- 
borough was  absent  without  a  proxy  on  two  days  when 
very  important  divisions  were  taken,  namely,  18th  and 
24th  March.  In  these  various  ways,  it  will  be  readily  seen 
that  the  Catholic  vote  was  weakened,  even  assuming  that 

!  Harl.  MS.  169,  f.  24'' ;  P.R.O.  Foreign,  Eliz.,  No.  230,  nth 
January,  1558-9.  Privy  Council  to  the  E.  of  Northumberland.  "He  is 
to  stay  in  the  North  and  not  come  to  Parliament." 

2  Chron.  Be/g.,  No.  CCCI,  i,  p.  442,  20th  February,  1558-9. 


ELIZABETH'S  FIRST  PARLIAMENT         51 

every  Catholic  would  have  voted  in  the  Catholic  interest. 
But  in  the  face  of  certain  ascertained  facts,  this  is  alto- 
gether too  large  an  assumption.  For  instance,  at  the  third 
reading  of  the  Bill  for  Restitution  of  First  Fruits  to  the 
Crown,  namely,  on  4th  February,  whereas  the  bishops  then 
present  unanimously  dissented  for  themselves  and  for  those 
whose  proxies  they  held — in  all,  a  negative  vote  of  15, — we 
are  expressly  told  by  Sir  Simon  D'Ewes  that  "all  the  other 
Temporal  Lords  present  .  .  .  did  all  {nullo  contradicente)  say, 
Content'^  These  included  10  Catholics  and  28  others, 
together  with  15  proxies;  thus  the  motion  was  carried 
against  the  bishops  by  a  majority  of  38.  This  measure,  it 
is  true,  was  one  which  even  a  staunch  Catholic  might  have 
conceived  himself  at  liberty  to  support,  for  it  did  not  neces- 
sarily imply  the  upholding  or  rejection  of  any  dogmatic 
principle.  It  might  have  been  understood  by  them  as 
embodying  a  policy  rather  than  any  principle;  and  when 
that  policy  dealt  with  the  retention  of  English  money 
within  England's  shores,  old  difficulties  on  that  score  with 
the  Roman  Curia  might  easily  account  for  the  arraying  of 
a  solid  temporal  vote  against  any  possibility  of  a  recurrence 
of  the  obnoxious  papal  exactions  of  past  times.  Even 
Collier  remarks  that  the  unanimity  of  the  Lords  in  favour 
of  the  Bill  was  "somewhat  strange  considering  they  were 
almost  all  of  them  the  same  members  which  made  the 
Act  for  returning  these  things  to  the  Church  in  the  late 
reign." 2  Possibly,  it  may  have  been  hoped,  by  a  timely 
concession  to  insular  and  anti-papal  feeling,  to  stay  further 
aggression.  If  so,  it  was  a  singularly  misguided  policy,  for 
it  served  to  whet  rather  than  to  dull  the  appetite  of  the 
Reformers. 

On  the  side  of  the  Protestants,  it  will  be  observed  that 
although  the  Earl  of  Oxford  was  absent  from  his  par- 
liamentary duties  continuously  from  9th  February  till 
1 6th  March,  this  period  covered  only  one  important  divi- 
sion, and  the  same  remark  applies  to  the  absence  of  the 

1  Journal  of  the  House  of  Lords,  ed.  1682,  p.  19. 

2  Eccl.  Hist.,  vol.  vi,  p.  213. 


52         ELIZABETH'S  FIRST  PARLIAMENT 

Earl  of  Huntingdon.  It  is  also  worthy  of  notice  that, 
although  it  may  be  inferred  that  Lord  Howard  of  Bindon 
entered  the  House  of  Lords  specially  to  champion  the 
Protestant  cause,  he  failed  to  attend  and  vote  for  the  Bill 
of  First  Fruits  on  4th  February,  and  had  not  appointed 
anyone  as  his  proxy.  This  omission  was  subsequently 
supplied,  and  the  Earl  of  Sussex  voted  for  him,  certainly 
on  24th  March,  possibly  also  during  the  remainder  of  the 
session.  The  votes  of  two  lords  were  entirely  lost.  Lord 
VVentworth  was  not  once  in  his  place  in  Parliament;  and 
having  been  for  a  portion  of  the  session  under  arrest  for 
his  supposed  share  in  the  loss  of  Calais,  was  probably  not  en- 
titled to  cast  a  vote  by  proxy.  Lord.  Latimer  was  also  absent 
for  the  whole  session  without  having  provided  a  proxy. 

This  cursory  survey  of  the  situation  will  suffice  to 
show  that  the  Protestant  vote  outnumbered  that  of  the 
Catholics;  but  it  must  be  borne  in  mind  that  our  judg- 
ment has  been  arrived  at  long  after  the  event,  when  we 
have  learnt  something  of  the  subsequent  careers  of  most, 
if  not  of  all,  of  the  actors  in  that  momentous  drama.  At 
the  time,  however,  it  would  have  been  impossible  accurately 
to  gauge  the  real  sentiments  of  each  peer.  The  ebb  and 
flow  of  religious  opinion  following  on  the  rapid  changes  in 
the  occupation  of  the  throne  must  have  been  bewildering 
to  a  degree  we  are  almost  incapable  of  realising.  One  short 
generation  had  seen  England  in  communion  with  the  See 
of  Rome  as  it  had  been  for  a  thousand  years ;  then  schism- 
atical  and  independent,  both  under  Henry;  Lutheran  and 
heretical  under  Edward ;  once  more  united  to  Rome  under 
Mary,  and  now  under  Elizabeth  every  prospect  of  another 
breach  presented  itself.  But  Elizabeth  was  unmarried;  no 
one  knew  exactly  what  were  her  real  sentiments  and  inten- 
tions ;  and  the  possibility  was  never  absent  that  the  Crown 
might  still  fall  to  a  Catholic,  in  the  event  of  anything  unto- 
ward happening  to  the  daughter  of  Anne  Boleyn.  Where 
conscience  was  blunted,  if  not  stifled,  and  conviction  un- 
settled with  so  many  previous  changes,  it  was  difficult  to 
know  how  to  act  to  the  best  personal  advantage.    Every 


ELIZABETH'S  FIRST  PARLIAMENT         53 

man  at  that  time  almost  necessarily  suspected  his  neigh- 
bour's sincerity.  This  uncertainty  would  appear  to  have 
ruled  the  appointment  of  proxies.  It  would  have  been 
only  natural  for  a  peer  really  Protestant  or  Catholic  at 
heart  to  appoint  one  of  like  convictions  to  act  for  him. 
Such  being  the  case,  many  of  the  selections  made  were 
singularly  unfortunate. 

As  regards  the  constitution  of  the  House  of  Commons,  it 
is  difficult,  if  not  impossible,  to  be  precise.  Sir  Thomas 
White,  once  Lord  Mayor  of  London,  a  founder  of  colleges 
and  schools,  and  a  staunch  Catholic,  courageously  protested 
in  this  Parliament  that  "it  was  unjust  that  a  religion  begun 
in  such  a  miraculous  way,  and  established  by  such  grave 
men,  should  be  abolished  by  a  set  of  beardless  boys."1 
Froude,  too,  points  out2  that  as  regards  the  Lower  House 
"the  Catholics  were  loud  in  their  complaints  of  the  unfair- 
ness of  the  elections;  and  it  may  be  assumed  as  certain 
that  a  Government  which  had  contemplated  the  removal  of 
every  Catholic  magistrate  in  the  kingdom  3  exerted  itself 
to  the  utmost  in  securing  the  return  of  its  friends,  .  .  .  the 
universal  horror  of  the  late  reign  forced  the  defenders  of  its 
principles  into  the  shade,  and  the  moving  party,  though 
numerically  the  weakest,  were  the  young,  the  eager,  and  the 
energetic.  The  Catholics  left  the  field  to  their  adversaries, 
and  the  towns  and  country  chose  their  representatives 
among  those  who  were  most  notorious  for  their  hatred  of 
popes  and  priesthoods."  That  picturesque  writer  relies  for 
proof  of  his  last  phrase  on  a  passage  in  a  letter  from  Feria 
to  Philip,4  in  which  he  refers  to :  "...  the  wickedness  which 
is  being  planned    in    this    Parliament,  which   consists   of 

1  Quoted  in  Simpson's  Life  of  Campion,  ed.  1896,  p.  7.  Elsewhere 
(pp.  4-5)  this  capable  student  speaks  of  a  "  packed  party  in  the  '  beard- 
less Parliament,'"  and  of  the  "  House  of  Lords,  from  which  by  threats 
and  cajolery  she  [Elizabeth]  had  caused  the  chief  Catholic  nobles  to 
absent  themselves." 

2  Hist,  of  Engl.,  vii,  pp.  40-41. 

3  Cf.  passim,  "  The  device  for  the  alteration  of  Religion,"  Cotton 
MSS.,  Julius  F.  vi,  No.  86. 

4  Chron.  Belg.,  No.  ccci,  i,  p.  442,  20th  February,  1558-9. 


54         ELIZABETH'S  FIRST  PARLIAMENT 

persons  chosen  throughout  the  country  as  being  the  most 
perverse  and  heretical." 

The  method  of  choice  hardly  conveys  the  idea,  accord- 
ing to  modern  notions,  that  the  members  were  in  any  sense 
the  representatives  of  the  people ;  for,  in  Lingard's  words, 
"a  majority  had  been  secured  by  the  expedient  of  sending 
to  the  sheriffs  a  list  of  court  candidates,  out  of  whom  the 
members  were  to  be  chosen.1  Diego  Yepez,  writing  before 
the  close  of  Elizabeth's  reign,  and  therefore  in  the  enjoy- 
ment of  the  possibility  of  learning  his  facts  from  eye- 
witnesses, thus  explained  the  Court  procedure:  "for  the 
purpose  of  suborning  justice  at  its  source,  by  bribery  and 
manipulation  in  the  name  and  with  the  authority  of  the 
Queen,  they  managed  that  the  members  who  were  returned 
for  the  counties  and  boroughs  should  be  selected  and 
nominated  to  their  liking."2  Proof  of  this  statement  is 
necessary  from  native  sources.    The  returns  for  Parliament 

1  Hist,  of  Engl.,  vi,  p.  351. 

2  "  Pero  estos  para  corromper  la  justicia  en  su  fuente,  con  sobornos  y 
negociacion,  y  nombre,  y  autoridad  Real,  procuraron,  que  los  Diputados 
se  embiassen  de  las  Provincias  y  Ciudades  escogidos  y  nombrados  a 
su  gusto  "  (Historia  Particular  de  la  Persecucio?i  de  Inglaterra,  etc., 
Madrid,  1599,  p.  13).  In  order  to  show  that  this  writer  was  well 
informed,  the  context  of  the  above  passage  may  be  quoted  with  ad- 
vantage :  "  Non  pudieron  prevalecer  contra  los  Prelados :  porque  la 
Reyna  Dona  Maria  los  aura  escogido  tales,  que  todos,  fuera  de  uno  solo, 
murieron  constantes  en  la  Fe  Catolica,  en  destierro,  6  en  prision :  pero 
ganaron  a  muchos  de  los  Cavalleros  por  artificio,  para  que  viniessen 
en  su  perversa  voluntad.  Al  Conde  de  Arundel  (que  podia  mucho  con 
los  demas)  enganaron  con  falsas  esperangas,  que  la  Reyna  se  casaria 
con  el,  si  quisiesse  dar  su  voto  en  las  Cortes,  como  ellos  le  pidieron. 
A  este  siguieron  el  Duque  de  Norfolque  su  yerno,  y  otros  sus  amigos, 
que  pendian  de  su  privan^a.  A  otros  ganaron  con  dadivas  y  pro- 
messas,  y  a  otros  convencieron  con  amenazas.  Y  finalmente  tanto 
hizieron,  que  a  pesar  de  los  obispos,  y  de  los  demas  que  defendian  la 
verdad,  salieron  con  su  intento,  aunque  con  solos  tres  votos  mas  por 
la  parte  de  la  Reyna,  que  por  la  de  los  que  contradezian  a  la  mudan£a 
de  la  Religion."  Surian  and  P.  Tiepolo  informed  the  Doge  and  Senate 
of  Venice  on  8th  January,  1558-9,  that  "the  Queen  .  .  .  announces 
her  intention  of  marrying  the  Earl  of  Arundel,  who  is  a  native 
Englishman  "  ( Venetian  Papers,  No.  7). 


ELIZABETH'S  FIRST  PARLIAMENT         55 

for  Mary's  last,  and  for  Elizabeth's  first,  session  form  a  basis 
of  comparison.  These  latter  are  by  no  means  perfect,  for 
about  one  hundred  returns,  more  or  less,  are  wanting.  By 
an  inspection  of  those  that  are  extant,  some  fifty  only  of 
the  members  who  sat  in  Mary's  Parliament  in  1558  found 
seats  in  Elizabeth's  in  1559.  Mr.  F.  W.  Maitland,  the 
writer  on  this  period  and  on  this  subject  in  the  Cambridge 
Modern  History,1  has  come  to  a  different  conclusion.  He 
says:  "The  Government's  control  over  the  electoral 
machinery  must  have  been  unusually  weak.  Our  statistics 
are  imperfect,  but  the  number  of  knights  and  burgesses 
who,  having  served  in  1558,  were  again  returned  in  1559, 
was  not  abnormally  small,  and  with  the  House  of  1558 
Mary  had  been  well  content.  Also  we  may  see  at  West- 
minster not  a  few  men  who  soon  afterwards  are  'hinderers 
of  true  religion,'  or  at  best  only  'faint  professors.'  "  Depend- 
ing on  the  proof  already  given,  our  dissent  from  this  writer's 
conclusions  is  apparent.  It  is  clear,  therefore,  that  a  very 
thorough  and  sweeping  change  was  effected.  This  could 
have  been  brought  about  only  by  Court  influence.  In  other 
words,  the  Parliament  was  a  packed  one;  and  the  historian 
Hume  supplies  the  explanation.  "It  appears,"  he  says, 
"that  some  violence  .  .  .  was  used  in  these  elections;  five 
candidates  were  nominated  by  the  Court  to  each  borough, 
and  three  to  each  county ;  and  by  the  sheriffs'  authority 
the  members  were  chosen  from  among  the  candidates."  2 
Hume's  statement  is  based  upon  a  document  of  the  reign 
of  Charles  I  among  Secretary  Windebank's  papers.3 

With  such  a  subservient  Lower  House,  Elizabeth's 
ministers  got  to  work.  It  does  not  fall  within  the  scope  of 
this  survey  to  consider  those  measures  which  were  of  a 
purely  secular  character;  but  careful  attention  must  be 
bestowed  on  all  those  which  in  any  way  tended  to  bring 
about  or  to  facilitate  religious  changes.  They  fall  easily  into 
two  groups:  those  which  directly  effected  a  radical  altera- 
tion in  the  religious  polity  of  the  nation  and  brought  into 

1  Vol.  ii,  p.  566.  2  Ed.  1854,  iv,  p.  7. 

3  State  Papers  collected  by  Edward,  Earl  of  Clarendon,  p.  92. 


1/ 


56         ELIZABETH'S  FIRST  PARLIAMENT 

being  the  Established  Church  practically  as  we  know  it  at  this 
day ;  and  others  of  a  subsidiary  character.  The  first  group 
contains  three  measures  of  paramount  importance  since  they 
effected  the  severance  from  Rome,  made  a  break  in  Catholic 
usage,  and  founded  a  national  Church,  by  striking  at  Catholic 
revenues,  jurisdiction,  and  worship.  The  first,  the  Bill  for 
the  Restoration  of  Tenths  and  First  Fruits,1  seized  the 
papal  revenues  derivable  from  this  country  by  ancient  and 
long-standing  custom,  which,  though  recently  abrogated  by 
Henry,  had  been  still  more  recently  restored  by  Mary. 
These  were  finally  annexed  to  the  Crown  of  England.  The 
Bill  for  the  Supremacy2  wholly  abolished  the  spiritual 
jurisdiction  of  the  Holy  See  in  this  country,  and  restored 
to  the  Crown  that  ecclesiastical  jurisdiction  assumed  by 
Henry  VIII  and  Edward  VI,  but  relinquished  by  Mary. 
The  Bill  of  Uniformity3  authorised  the  Second  Prayer 
Book  of  Edward  VI  {i.e.,  that  of  1552)  with  a  few  slight 
alterations,  enjoining  its  exclusive  use  in  divine  service,  in 
the  administration  of  the  Sacraments,  and  in  the  Ordering 
of  Bishops  and  Ministers,  instead  of  forms  found  in  the 
ancient  Liturgy  of  the  Catholic  Church.  It  would  indeed  be 
enough  to  follow  the  fortunes  of  these  three  Bills  without 
troubling  about  the  remainder,  which  were  really  ancillary, 
supplementing  them,  but  not  modifying  them. 

After  the  formal  opening  of  Parliament  by  the  Queen, 
on  25th  January,  both  Houses  at  once  settled  down  to 
serious  work. 

On  Monday,  30th  January,  the  Commons  thought  well 
to  appoint  a  Committee  to  enquire  into  and  report  upon  a 
difficulty  that  had  been  raised,  which,  if  not  at  once 
settled,  might  cause  serious  complications  by  possibly 
invalidating  all  their  acts.  Henry  VIII  had  added  to  his 
ancient  style  and  title  that  of  "  Supreme  Head  of  the 
English  Church."  Edward  of  course  invariably  employed 
the  same  formula,  as  also  did  Mary  until  such  time  as  by 
parliamentary  action  she  was  free  to  renounce  it  and 
restore  it  to  the  Holy  See.    The  writs  of  summons  to  her 

1   1  Eliz.,  c.  4.  2  1  Eliz.,  c.  1.  3  1  Eliz.,  c.  2. 


ELIZABETH'S  FIRST  PARLIAMENT         57 

last  Parliament,  in  1558,  did  not  contain  the  recital  of  this 
title;  those  issued  for  Elizabeth's  first  Parliament  followed 
this  recent  precedent.  Some  one  now  raised  the  question 
whether  the  omission  in  Mary's  writs  had  not  invalidated 
all  the  Acts  passed  in  that  Parliament;  and  if  this  should 
prove  to  be  the  case,  whether  the  Acts  of  the  present 
Parliament  would  not  be  equally  illegal.  Four  days  later 
the  Committee — a  strong  one  of  twenty-four  members — ■ 
reported  that  the  said  writs  were  valid  and  in  good  form, 
notwithstanding  the  omission  of  the  title  "  Supremum 
Caput y  The  objection  was  a  legitimate  one,  and  needed 
to  be  met,  to  secure  the  acts  of  the  Parliament  against 
possible  hostile  critics;  but  the  raising  of  the  question  at 
all  was  significant  of  the  pervading  desire  to  retain,  not 
only  the  shadow  of  an  empty  title,  but  to  secure  in 
addition  the  substance  the  words  clothed;  a  substance 
renounced  by  Mary  as  being  untenable  by  her  and  her 
successors,  since  it  belonged  by  right  to  another.1 

The  battle  between  the  old  order  and  the  new  was 
opened  in  the  Upper  House,  where,  if  some  of  the  peers 
were  hostile  or  only  unreliable,  there  always  remained  the 
solid  phalanx  of  the  bishops  to  contend  for  the  maintenance 
of  the  Catholic  Faith.  Their  hands  were,  moreover,  con- 
considerably  strengthened  by  the  action  of  Convocation. 
Undoubtedly  that  particular  Convocation  was  really  repre- 

1  II  Schifanoya  did  not  quite  understand  the  purport  of  this  debate, 
confounding  it  with  the  rumours  which  must  have  been  already  in  the 
air  as  to  the  intention  to  restore  the  spiritual  Supremacy  of  the 
Crown.  Three  days  before  that  Bill  was  introduced,  he  wrote  thus  to 
Vivaldino:  "Here,  Parliament  goes  on  briskly,  and  in  the  Lower 
House  there  was  great  talk  about  giving  the  title  of  Supreme  Head 
of  the  Anglican  Church  {Supremum  Caput  Ecclesiae  Anglicanae)  to  the 
Queen,  much  being  said  against  the  Church  [of  Rome] ;  but  nothing 
has  been  yet  settled" (Venetian  Papers,  No.  18,  6th  February,  1558-9). 
On  the  same  date  we  get  the  following  particulars  from  another  letter : 
"  Respecting  the  title  Caput  Ecclesiae,  it  was  debated  incidentally,  but 
nothing  has  been  settled  or  even  proposed,  but  should  any  motion  be 
made  to  that  effect,  as  is  expected,  I  hear  that  many  members  who 
have  hitherto  been  silent  will  commence  speaking,  so  that  there  will 
be  much  matter  for  debate"  {Ibid.,  No.  19,  6th  February,  1558-9). 


58         ELIZABETH'S  FIRST  PARLIAMENT 

sentative  of  the  clergy  who  had  sent  their  proctors  to 
attend  its  deliberations.  The  unanimity  displayed  by  this, 
the  last  Convocation  held  under  Catholic  auspices,  was 
remarkable,  and,  if  the  events  of  the  succeeding  twelve 
months  be  borne  in  mind,  also  not  without  significance,  for 
therein  they  discovered  their  true  minds,  without  coercion 
or  fear  of  consequences. 

After  several  sessions,  the  Lower  House  of  Convocation 
drew  up  a  series  of  "  Articles  "  which  were,  practically,  in 
the  nature  of  a  protest  against  any  contemplated  reversion 
to  Edwardine  religion,  and  this  they  did  "  for  the  dis- 
burdening of  their  consciences  and  a  profession  of  their 
faith."  These  articles  they  presented  to  the  Upper  House 
of  Convocation  on  28th  February,  1558-9,  begging  the 
bishops  to  support  and  lead  them  in  their  defence  of 
doctrine  and  practice.  These  articles  were  five  in  number.1 
The  first  three  will  be  found  to  be  textually  identical  with 
the  theses  disputed  at  Oxford  in  1 554,  "as  the  great  xpirvipiov  of 
Popery"  (to  employ  Strype's  description  of  them),2  against 
Cranmer,  Ridley,  and  Latimer,  when  they  were  condemned 
to  the  stake  for  heresy.  The  fourth  upheld  the  Supremacy 
as  vested  in  the  Holy  See,  and  the  fifth  claimed  for  eccle- 
siastics alone  the  right  and  authority  of  deciding  on 
matters  pertaining  to  Faith,  the  Sacraments,  and  church 
discipline.  The  others  dealt  with  the  doctrine  of  the  Real 
Presence,  Transubstantiation,  and  the  real  sacrificial  and 
propitiatory  character  of  the  Mass.  It  will  be  seen  that 
these  articles  covered  the  main  subjects  in  dispute  between 
the  Church  of  Rome  and  the  Reformers,  and  ranged  the 
clergy  of  England  through  their  accredited  representatives, 
on  the  side  of  Rome. 

Attention  has  already  been  called  (p.  40)  to  the  inferences 
Mr.  G.  Child  has  drawn  from  the  facts ;  hence  considerable  im- 
portance attaches  to  this  expression  of  opinion  from  a  body 
so  free  from  subservience  as  was  the  Convocation  of  1559. 
And  Mr.  Child  further  deduces  that  it  exercised  its  freedom 
"  in  a  much  greater  degree  than  any  other  Convocation  of 
1   Cf.  Wilkins,  Concilia,  iv,  p.  179.  2  Ann.  i,  p.  56. 


ELIZABETH'S  FIRST  PARLIAMENT         59 

the  period ;  while  the  completeness  with  which  its  decisions 
were  ignored  shows  clearly  how  very  little  the  opinions 
of  the  Clergy,  as  a  body,  really  affected  the  course  of  the 
Reformation."  ' 

This  deliberate  verdict  further  corroborates  the  statement 
already  ventured  (p.  43)  that  the  shaping  of  the  national 
Church  is  largely,  if  not  wholly,  the  work  of  laymen.  The 
general  inferences  to  be  gathered  from  this  view  of  the 
case  will  become  apparent  at  a  later  stage  of  this  study  of 
the  period;  meanwhile  the  fact  remains  that  when  the 
clergy  were  free  from  fear  for  personal  safety,  they  declared 
themselves  through  their  representatives  in  favour  of  the 
Roman  Faith  and  the  Roman  Obedience.  It  was  self- 
interest  alone,  the  dread  of  loss  of  liberty  and  goods,  that 
in  the  end  prevailed  against  conscience  and  conviction. 

The  Lower  House,  when  presenting  these  Articles  to  the 
bishops,  requested  their  lordships  to  lay  a  copy  of  them, 
by  way  of  petition,  before  the  House  of  Lords.  Their 
"  petition  "  had  been  strengthened  by  the  adhesion  of  both 
Universities  to  the  first  four  articles  it  embodied,  their 
objection  to  the  last  being  probably  due,  not  to  dissent  to 
the  principles  there  enunciated,  but  to  the  fact  that,  in 
their  estimation,  not  sufficient  weight  had  been  attached  to 
their  own  function  as  a  theological  teaching  body.  Bishop 
Bonner  took  charge  of  the  petition,  and  in  due  course 
reported  to  Convocation  that  he  had  presented  it  to  Sir 
Nicholas  Bacon,  Lord  Keeper  of  the  Great  Seal,  who, 
according  to  Strype,  "  received  them  [i.e.,  the  Articles],  as 
appeared,  gratefully;  but  gave  no  answer."2  The^answer 
was  given  in  the  Westminster  Conference,  and,  still  more 
decisively,  in  parliamentary  legislation. 

The  real  attack  had  been  opened  in  the  House  of  Lords 
by  the  introduction  of  a  Bill  "  for  the  Restitution  of  First 
Fruits  and  Tenths,  and  Rents  reserved  nomine  Decimae,  and 
of  Parsonages  Impropriated,  to  the  Imperial  Crown  of  this 
Realm." 3     It  was  read  a  first   time  on    30th  January,  a 

1  Church  and  State  under  the  Tudors,  p.  1 80. 

2  Ann.  i,  p.  56.  3  1  Eliz.,  c.  4. 


60         ELIZABETH'S  FIRST  PARLIAMENT 

second  time  on  the  following  day,  and  after  the  third 
reading,  on  4th  February,  on  being  put  to  the  vote,  was 
carried  by  a  majority  of  thirty-eight,  the  only  dissentients 
to  the  measure  being  the  Spiritual  Lords.  The  Bill  was 
then  sent  down  to  the  Commons,  where  it  was  received 
with  all  customary  solemnities  on  6th  February,  and 
there  read  a  first  time,  probably  that  same  day,  though  no 
mention  of  the  fact  occurs  in  the  Journals  of  the  House. 
It  passed  its  second  reading,  however,  ten  days  later,  when 
some  amendments  were  added  to  it  which  were  read  a  first 
and  second  time  on  20th  February.  The  third  reading  of 
the  Bill  (with  its  amendments)  took  place  next  day,  21st 
February,  whereupon,  after  being  voted,  it  was  sent  back 
to  the  Lords  and  there  straightway  read  a  first  time  in  its 
amended  form.  It  reached  the  second  reading  on  22nd 
February ;  and,  though  the  Journals  are  silent  on  the  point, 
it  would  appear  that  it  was  referred  to  a  Committee,  for  it 
received  further  amendment,  and,  in  this  form,  passed  its 
second  reading  in  the  Lords  on  13th  March,  and  thereupon 
it  was  ordered  to  be  engrossed.  The  third  reading  was 
taken  on  15th  March,  on  which  occasion  it  passed  with 
eight  dissentients,  according  to  D'Ewes — seven  bishops 
and  the  Abbot  of  Westminster.  The  voting  strength  that 
day  in  the  House,  either  in  personal  attendance  or  by 
proxy,  represented  fifteen  for  the  dissentients  against  thirty- 
six  in  favour  of  the  measure  in  that  stage — a  majority 
of  twenty-one.  Once  more  sent  down  to  the  Commons, 
it  was  there  read  the  first,  second,  and  third  times 
on  1 6th,  20th,  and  22nd  March  respectively,  when  it 
passed,  and  was  returned  to  the  Lords,  there  to  await  the 
royal  assent,  which  it  received  in  due  course  on  8th  May. 

Attention  may  now  be  given  to  several  Bills,  which, 
while  bearing,  more  or  less,  on  the  religious  question,  were 
mainly  non-contentious  in  their  scope.  They  are  of  im- 
portance, however,  in  this  survey,  inasmuch  as  they  afford 
proof  that  the  bishops  and  others  were  not  unreasonable 
opponents  of  all  measures  indiscriminately;  but  that,  where 
they  could  do  so  without  sacrificing  principles,  they  showed 


ELIZABETH'S  FIRST  PARLIAMENT         61 

their  loyalty  equally  with  the  most  demonstrative,  and  that 
they  did  not  obstruct  merely  for  obstruction's  sake.  On 
ist  February,  the  House  of  Lords  had  before  it  for  the  first 
time  a  Bill  for  the  Recognition  of  the  Queen's  Majesty's  Title 
to  the  Crown.  As  already  narrated,  Archbishop  Heath,  in 
proclaiming  Elizabeth's  accession  to  the  throne,  had 
asserted  her  undoubted  right  to  it  by  the  will  of  the  nation 
in  no  uncertain  terms.  Now,  with  glad  alacrity,  the  Bill 
was  hurried  through  the  customary  stages  on  ist,  4th,  and 
9th  February,1  and  was  passed  unanimously,  "  communi 
omnium  procerum  assensu,"  and  was  sent  forthwith  to  the 
House  of  Commons.    Here  it  was  dealt  with  less  expe- 

1  Burnet,  Hist,  of  Reform.,  ed.  Pocock,  1865,  ii,  p.  609.  "  On  the  9th 
of  Feb.  the  Lords  passed  a  bill  for  the  recognising  of  the  Queen's  title 
to  the  Crown.  It  had  been  considered,  whether,  as  Q.  Mary  had  pro- 
cured a  former  repeal  of  her  mother's  divorce,  and  of  the  Acts  passed 
upon  it,  declaring  her  illegitimate,  the  like  should  be  done  now.  The 
Lord  Keeper  said,  the  Crown  purged  all  defects ;  and  it  was  needless  to 
look  back  to  a  thing  which  would  at  least  cast  a  reproach  on  her 
father;  the  enquiring  into  such  things  too  anxiously  would  rather 
prejudice  than  advance  her  title.  So  he  advised,  that  there  should 
be  an  Act  passed  in  general  words  asserting  the  lawfulness  of  her 
descent,  and  her  right  to  the  Crown,  rather  than  any  special  repeal. 
Q.  Mary  and  her  Council  were  careless  of  K.  Henry's  honour;  but  it 
became  her  rather  to  conceal  than  expose  his  weakness.  This  being 
thought  both  wise  and  pious  counsel,  the  Act  was  conceived  in  general 
words,  'that  they  did  assuredly  believe  and  declare,  that  by  the  laws 
of  God  and  of  the  realm  she  was  their  lawful  Queen,  and  that  she  was 
rightly,  lineally,  and  lawfully  descended  from  the  royal  blood,  and 
that  the  Crown  did  without  all  doubt  or  ambiguity  belong  to  her,  and 
the  heirs  to  be  lawfully  begotten  of  her  body  after  her;  and  that  they, 
as  representing  the  three  estates  of  the  realm,  did  declare  and  assert 
her  title,  which  they  would  defend  with  their  lives  and  fortunes.'  This 
was  thought  to  be  very  wise  counsel ;  for  if  they  had  gone  to  repeal 
the  sentence  of  divorce  which  passed  upon  her  mother's  acknowledg- 
ing a  pre-contract,  they  must  have  set  forth  the  force  that  was  on  her 
when  she  made  that  confession ;  and  that,  as  it  was  a  great  dishonour 
to  her  father,  so  it  would  have  raised  discourses  likewise  to  her 
mother's  prejudice,  which  must  have  rather  weakened  than  strength- 
ened her  title ;  and,  as  has  been  formerly  observed,  this  seems  to  be 
the  true  reason  why  in  all  her  reign  there  was  no  apology  printed  for 
her  mother." 


62         ELIZABETH'S  FIRST  PARLIAMENT 

ditiously,  the  dates  of  its  three  readings  being  nth  and 
1 6th  February,  and  ist  March,  when  it  was  returned  to  the 
Upper  House  (2nd  March)  in  due  course,  receiving  the 
royal  assent  at  the  close  of  the  session. 

A  Bill  of  somewhat  similar  import,  declaring  the  Queen 
to  be  heritable  in  law  to  her  mother,  the  late  Queen  Anne 
Boleyn,  touched  on  extremely  delicate  ground,  for  the  stain 
on  Elizabeth's  birth  still  legally  remained;  this  measure  in 
a  roundabout  and  veiled  way  affirmed  her  legal  right  to 
inherit  through  her  mother,  without  referring  in  express 
words  to  the  awkwardness  of  the  situation  created  by 
Cranmer's  decree  of  nullity.  In  the  Lords  the  Bill  was 
introduced  on  10th  February;  and  so  anxious  were  the 
peers  to  give  proof  of  their  devotion  to  the  Queen's  cause 
that  it  passed  its  second  reading  the  same  day,  and  was 
ordered  to  be  engrossed.  It  came  up  for  third  reading  on 
the  15th,1  passed  at  once,  and  was  sent  to  the  Lower 
House,  where  it  passed  through  the  usual  stages  on  16th, 
1 8th,  and  21st  February,  when  it  at  once  went  back  to  the 
peers,  there  to  await  the  royal  assent. 

Two  other  Bills,  also  nearly  concerning  the  Queen,  were 
introduced  at  this  time.  One,  declaring  certain  offences  to 
be  treason,  was  read  in  the  Lords:  the  first  time  on  9th 
February,  the  second  on  10th  February,  when  it  was  ordered 
to  be  engrossed,  and  after  the  third  reading  on  the  follow- 
ing day,  it  was  transferred  to  the  Commons,  to  be  read  a 
first  and  second  time  on  15th  and  16th  of  the  same  month. 
In  committee  it  received  some  amendments,  and  in  that 
form  passed  its  third  reading  on  the  23rd,  thereafter  return- 
ing to  the  Lords  to  be  further  considered,  on  27th  February. 
The  peers  seem  to  have  met  a  committee  of  the  House  of 
Commons  in  order  to  deal  jointly  with  the  amendments. 
This  conference  of  the  two  Chambers  took  place  on  3rd 
March;  but  the  next  stages  are  involved  in  a  certain 
amount  of  obscurity,  for  a  second  reading  of  amendments 
devised  by  the  Lords  is  registered  by  D'Ewes  as  having 
taken  place  on  10th  March,  while  he  at  the  same  time 
1  Or  16th.    Some  authorities  give  one  date,  some  the  other. 


ELIZABETH'S  FIRST  PARLIAMENT         63 

records,  from  the  Journals  of  the  Upper  House,  a  second 
reading  there  of  an  amendment  on  the  1  ith,  on  which  occa- 
sion also  it  was  ordered  to  be  engrossed ;  and  in  the  same 
House  the  amendment  was  submitted  to  a  third  reading,  and 
passed,  on  13th  March.  Three  days  later  this  last  amend- 
ment came  before  the  Commons  for  its  third  reading,  and 
was  passed.  It  is  not  traceable  further  in  the  Journals  of 
either  House  beyond  its  inclusion  in  the  list  of  measures 
receiving  the  royal  assent  at  the  closing  of  the  session. 

Another  Bill,  prompted  by  officiously  zealous  loyalty  to 
the  new  Sovereign,  was  framed  to  render  certain  slanderous 
words  against  the  Queen  punishable.  The  real  object  of 
the  measure  was  to  close  the  mouths  of  such  men  as  had 
hitherto  talked  too  freely  about  the  questionable  nature  of 
her  Majesty's  title  to  the  Crown  according  to  the  laws  of 
primogeniture.  This  Bill  was  read  in  the  Lords  the  first 
time  on  9th  February,  passing  next  day  to  the  second 
reading,  when  it  was  ordered  to  be  engrossed,  and  on  the 
nth  was  hurried  through  the  third  reading  and  went  down 
to  the  Commons,  where  it  was  read  a  first  time  on  the  15th, 
but  did  not  come  forward  for  second  reading  for  nearly  a 
month,  13th  March,  and  reached  its  third  stage  on  the  17th. 
Some  unrecorded  amendment  was  added  to  it,  it  would 
seem,  which  engaged  the  attention  of  the  Lords  on  20th 
March,  and  was  doubtless  adopted,  as  nothing  further 
transpires  of  the  passage  of  the  measure  till  its  inclusion  in 
the  list  of  Bills  receiving  the  royal  assent  on  8th  May. 

A  group  of  measures  may  here  be  mentioned  together. 
As  they  did  not  pass  through  all  the  necessary  stages  to 
the  final  one  of  the  royal  assent,  they  are  in  reality  of  little 
importance  if  considered  on  their  own  merits.  But  they  are 
at  least  of  interest,  and,  indeed,  of  subsidiary  importance, 
as  bearing  witness  to  the  temper  of  the  legislative  body, 
and  furnish  unmistakable  indications  of  the  trend  of  opinion 
amongst  those  who  wished  to  bask  in  the  royal  sunshine. 

They  fall  into  three  main  divisions.  The  first  comprises 
only  one  Bill,  whose  object  ("  To  revive  the  Act  for  punish- 
ment of  rebellions  "),  it  is  somewhat  difficult  to  determine, 


64         ELIZABETH'S  FIRST  PARLIAMENT 

seeing  that  the  original  Bill  for  Treasons  passed  its  third 
reading  nearly  a  month  before,  on  16th  March.  But  as 
D'Ewes  schedules  this  one  as  "  I  nova  "  when  it  was  intro- 
duced into  the  Commons  on  13th  April,  it  may,  presumably, 
be  taken  to  represent  a  suggested  amendment  to  the  terms 
of  the  original  Bill.  It  passed  the  second  reading,  and  was 
ordered  to  be  engrossed  on  17th  April,  and  was  taken  for 
the  third  time  on  the  following  day.  Whether  it  then  went 
up  to  the  Lords,  or  whether  it  was  incorporated  in  the 
earlier  Bill  is  not  disclosed  by  the  Journals  of  either  House. 
A  specially  significant  measure  was  introduced  into  the 
House  of  Commons  on  8th  March.  It  was  a  Bill  "  to  restore 
spiritual  persons  that  were  deprived  for  marriages  or  heresies, 
to  be  restored  to  their  benefices."  The  object  in  view  was 
nothing  less  than  an  attempt  to  set  aside  the  Canon  Law 
still  in  force,  and,  in  fact,  to  legalise  the  marriage  of  the 
clergy.  Henry  VIII  would  have  none  of  it,  and  one  clause 
of  his  "  Six  Articles  "  enforced  the  continued  observance  as 
of  yore  of  clerical  celibacy.  The  boy-king  Edward's  Council 
permitted  the  marriage  of  priests,  and  many  availed  them- 
selves of  the  concession.  When  Mary's  Parliament  abrogated 
the  anti-Roman  ecclesiastical  enactments  of  her  father  and 
brother,  one  of  the  first  duties  to  whose  performance  she 
applied  herself,  was  to  cleanse  those  parishes  which  were 
burthened  by  it,  of  the  scandal  of  a  clergy  living  in  defiance 
of  this  universal  law.  All  beneficed  clergy  who  had  taken 
to  themselves  wives,  were  summarily  deprived  of  their 
livings,  unless  they  consented  to  put  their  wives  away.  This 
apparently  harsh  procedure  was  founded  on  the  ecclesiastical 
law  which  rendered  clergy  incapable  of  contracting  matri- 
mony, and,  therefore,  whatever  local  law  might  permit,  by 
the  Church's  law  they  were  living,  not  in  wedlock,  but  in 
sinful  concubinage.  The  Bill  introduced  into  Elizabeth's 
first  Parliament  was  clearly  meant  to  undo  Mary's  and  to 
restore  Edward's  Act;  but  its  promoters  counted  without 
their  new  Queen,  or  had  not  as  yet  rightly  gauged  her 
sentiments  on  the  subject  of  a  married  clergy.  No  more 
was  heard  of  the  Bill :  it  was  quietly  let  drop.    The  Queen's 


ELIZABETH'S  FIRST  PARLIAMENT 

intense  dislike  for  a  married  clergy  must  have  made  it- 
self known  without  delay;  the  measure  could  not  but  have 
been  a  popular  one  in  a  reforming  House;  only  a  higher 
authority  which  would  brook  no  opposition  could  have 
caused  it  to  be  so  rapidly  and  summarily  shelved.  The 
main  object  of  the  Bill  was,  however,  attained  in  other  ways, 
as  will  be  seen  later.  This  Bill  was  followed  by  an  equally 
abortive  one:  to  secure  the  restoration  of  certain  deprived 
bishops.  Had  it  passed,  it  would  have  benefited  old  Miles 
Coverdale,  Edwardine  Bishop  of  Exeter;  John  Scory, 
Edwardine  Bishop  of  Rochester  and  of  Chichester;  John 
Hodgkyns,  Edwardine  suffragan  Bishop  of  Bedford ;  and 
William  Barlow  of  Bath,  whose  consecration  is  disputed ; 
but  if  it  indeed  took  place,  was  performed  in  1536  under 
the  Roman  Pontifical,  when  he  was  appointed  to  the  See 
of  St.  David's.  The  Bill  was  introduced  into  the  Lower 
House  on  15th  March;  but  the  Journals  make  no  further 
mention  of  it  till  6th  April,  when  it  is  entered  as  the  third 
reading  of  the  Bill  "  to  restore  spiritual  persons  deprived 
by  Queen  Mary."  This  is  possibly  an  oversight,  and  that 
the  second  reading  was  meant,  as  it  would  appear  that  it 
was  then  entrusted  to  Mr.  Goldsmyth  and  a  committee  for 
further  consideration,  after  which  it  came  in  again  as  a  new 
Bill  on  27th  April,  in  the  form  "  that  the  Queen,  by  com- 
mission, may  restore  spiritual  persons  deprived,"  when  it  was 
read  a  first  and  second  time,  and  ordered  to  be  engrossed, 
according  to  the  Journals;  but  D'Ewes  here  differs  slightly, 
as  he  states  that  the  second  reading  occurred  on  29th  April. 
He  agrees  with  the  Journals,  however,  in  fixing  the  third 
reading  for  2nd  May,  when  it  was  sent  up  to  the  Lords, 
though  no  mention  of  the  fact  is  made  in  the  Journals  of 
that  House;  nor  does  it  appear  amongst  the  measures 
which  received  the  royal  assent.  Nevertheless,  the  results 
it  was  designed  to  secure  were  attained  as  effectually,  if 
not  more  so,  by  the  Supremacy  Act.  It  was  possibly 
dropped  at  the  last  stage,  as  being  superfluous. 

On  1 6th  March  another  Bill,  aiming  at  the  then  occupants 
of  the  English  Sees,  was  brought  before  the  Commons.    If 
F 


66         ELIZABETH'S  FIRST  PARLIAMENT 

we  may  trust  the  records,  it  never  got  beyond  its  first 
reading.  As  its  purport  was  "  to  make  lawful  the  depriva- 
tion of  Bishops  and  Spiritual  persons,"  it  is  not  improbable 
that  it  was  dropped  because  the  ground  it  covered  was 
already  occupied  by  a  clause  in  a  much  more  important 
Bill  to  be  discussed  later  on. 

These  Bills  were,  it  can  hardly  be  doubted,  introduced  as 
a  desperate  expedient,  when  the  fortunes  of  the  Supremacy 
Act  were  hanging  in  the  balance.  Had  the  plan  of  restor- 
ing at  any  rate  three  of  the  deprived  Edwardine  bishops 
to  their  Sees  succeeded,  their  votes  would  have  been  in- 
valuable in  the  House  of  Lords,  and  the  loss  to  the  Catholic 
vote  this  would  have  entailed  would  have  added  further 
strength  to  the  Protestant  side,  for  on  a  division  those  votes 
would  of  course  have  counted  as  six.  With  their  failure, 
however,  the  Government  were  placed  in  an  awkward 
position.  To  extricate  themselves  from  this,  to  destroy,  if 
possible,  the  prestige  of  the  bishops,  recourse  was  had  to 
other  measures.  The  Easter  recess  gave  time  to  reorganise 
the  plan  of  campaign;  a  trap  was  skilfully  baited:  the 
Catholic  party  stepped  into  it :  the  Westminster  Conference 
was  held,  and  two  bishops  were  disposed  of.  Every  effort 
was  made  to  discredit  the  Catholic  party  through  the  official 
version  of  that  abortive  meeting,  and  the  tide  at  length  began 
to  turn  in  favour  of  the  Government. 

The  third  group  consists  of  six  measures.  The  first  of 
these  was  a  Bill  laid  before  the  Lower  House  on  27th  Feb- 
ruary, "for  making  of  ecclesiastical  laws  by  32  persons." 
It  reached  its  second  reading  on  1st  March,  was  engrossed, 
and  read  a  third  time  on  17th  March,  then,  finding  its  way 
to  the  Upper  Chamber  on  the  20th,  was  read  a  first  time 
there  on  the  22nd,  after  which  no  more  was  heard  of  it  in 
that  particular  form,  though  its  provisions,  whatever  they 
may  have  been,  possibly  found  expression  elsewhere. 

On  17th  March  another  straw  to  show  the  direction  of 
the  current  was  sent  down  the  stream  in  the  Lower  House. 
On  that  day  a  Bill  "  that  no  persons  shall  be  punished  for 
using  the  Religion  used  in  King  Edward's  last  year  "  was 


ELIZABETH'S  FIRST  PARLIAMENT         67 

read  a  first  and  second  time  and  was  ordered  to  be  en- 
grossed. It  passed  the  third  reading  at  the  next  sitting, 
but  then  drops  out  of  notice.  The  object  aimed  at  was 
secured  in  a  more  permanent  form  later  in  the  session. 
Meanwhile,  the  House  of  Lords  had  a  similar  measure 
before  it,  "  to  take  away  all  pains  and  penalties  made  for 
Religion  in  Queen  Mary's  time."  This  was  on  20th  March, 
but  it  appears  to  have  been  at  once  shelved,  for  its  purpose 
was  otherwise  attained ;  it  was  as  useless  as  its  congener. 

On  4th  April  a  Bill  "  for  leases  to  be  made  by  Spiritual 
Persons "  was,  in  the  Upper  House,  entrusted  for  further 
consideration  to  a  committee  on  which  were  the  Duke  of 
Norfolk,  the  Earl  of  Rutland,  the  Bishop  of  Carlisle,  Lords 
Rich,  North,  and  Hastings  of  Loughborough,  and  the 
Abbot  of  Westminster.  What  may  have  been  the  precise 
scope  of  this  Bill  does  not  transpire ;  probably  it  was  to 
limit  the  length  of  the  leases  made  by  ecclesiastics,  bishops 
especially.  The  Journals  for  this  portion  of  the  session  are, 
however,  defective,  and  no  mention  occurs  of  any  formal 
introduction  of  the  Bill,  nor  is  any  subsequent  allusion  to  it 
to  be  met  with.  It  must  have  reached  a  second  reading,  how- 
ever, to  have  been  sent  to  committee.  D'Ewes's  notes 
imply  as  much,  as  he  puts  down  the  first  reading  for  the 
4th,  and  that  it  went  to  committee  on  the  5th. 

A  Bill  was  introduced  in  the  Lower  House  on  6th  April, 
very  significant  in  its  tendency.  It  was  to  secure  that  all 
such  chantries  and  colleges  as  had  been  granted  to  King 
Edward  VI  should  be  made  over  to  Elizabeth.  It  was 
read  a  second  time  on  8th  April,  after  which  no  more  is 
heard  of  it;  but  as  it  was  not  ordered  to  be  engrossed,  it 
may  be  assumed  that  it  was  thrown  out. 

Another  Bill  got  a  stage  further,  according  to  the  Lords' 
Journal,  for  it  reached  a  third  reading.  No  mention  occurs, 
however,  of  its  having  been  sent  to  the  Commons,  or  of  any 
debate  upon  it  in  the  Lower  Chamber.  But,  according  to 
D'Ewes,  the  Bill  originated  there,  whence  it  went  to  the 
Lords.  It  was  "  An  Act  for  the  admitting  and  consecrating 
of  Archbishops  and  Bishops,"  according  to  the  wording  of 


68         ELIZABETH'S  FIRST  PARLIAMENT 

the  Journals.    It  was  read  a  first  and  second  time  on  22nd 
March,  and  passed  its  third  reading  on  the  following  day; 
but  there  is  no  further  reference  to  it,  and  what  its  final 
fate  was  may  be  left  to  conjecture:  it  was  certainly  not 
amongst  the  Bills  which  received  the  royal  assent  on  8th 
May ;  but  it  may  well  be  that  its  substance  was  incorporated 
in  a  Bill  that  will  be  discussed  presently,  and  hence  there 
was  no  call  for  it  to  reach  maturity  as  a  separate  measure. 
Five  Bills  that  received  the  royal  assent  and  took  their 
place  amongst  the  statutes  of  the  realm  yet  remain  to  be 
dealt  with.   They  are  consequently  of  importance,  but  in 
varying  degree.    Three  may  be  classified  as  of  the  lesser 
grade,  and  may  therefore  precede  the  two  of  vital  interest. 
All  three  originated  in  the  Lower  House,  and  may  be  taken 
here  in  their  chronological  sequence.    The  first  was  the 
"  Bill   touching  Colleges    and    Chantries    surrendered   to 
Henry  VIII," '  which  was  read  the  first  time  on  10th  March, 
and  came  up  for  second  reading  on  the  20th  of  the  same 
month,  when  it  was  ordered  to  be  engrossed.     Its  object 
was  to  empower  the  Queen  to  make  laws  regulating  the 
government  of  these  institutions.    It  passed  its  third  read- 
ing on  the  morning  of  21st  March,  and  was  instantly  sent 
to  the  Lords,  who  read  it  the  first  time  in  the  course  of  the 
same  forenoon!   With  almost  feverish  haste  it  passed  its 
second  reading  in  the  afternoon  of  the  same  day,  and  its 
third  and  final  reading  on  the  22nd,  and  had  then  merely 
to  await  the  Queen's  assent  at  the  end  of  the  session. 
1     The  second  Bill 2  of  importance  was  to  the  effect  "  that 
the  Queen  shall  collate  or  appoint  bishops  in  bishoprics 
;  being  vacant."   This  measure  was  read  a  first  and  second 
'time  on   21st  March,  and  thereupon  ordered    to   be   en- 
grossed.   It  passed  its  third  reading  next  day  and  was  sent 
to  the  Lords,  where,  according  to  D'Ewes,  it  was  received 
and  read  a  first  time  on  that  same  date,  22nd  March.   The 
Journals  of  the  House  put  down  its  second  reading  as  hav- 
ing been  taken  on  6th  April,  and  that  it  passed  its  third 
stage  on  7th  April,  when  it  was  returned  to  the  Commons; 
1  1  Eliz.  c.  22.  2  1  Eliz.  c.  19. 


ELIZABETH'S  FIRST  PARLIAMENT         69 

but  D'Ewes  is  categorical  in  his  statement  that  it  was  read 
"  tertia  vice  et  conclusa"  on  Thursday,  23rd  March.  The 
Journals  record  that  it  was  read  a  third  time,  and  passed 
on  7th  April,  and  the  statement  is  added  that  certain 
Spiritual  Peers  voted  against  the  Bill,  no  mention  being 
made  of  any  support  being  accorded  them  by  any  lay  lords 
present  on  that  day.  The  dissentients  were  Archbishop 
Heath,  the  Bishops  of  London,  Worcester,  Coventry  and 
Lichfield,  Exeter,  Chester,  and  Carlisle,  together  with  the 
Abbot  of  Westminster.  The  strength  of  the  vote  on  either 
side  cannot  be  ascertained.  If  D'Ewes  is  right  as  to  23rd 
March  being  the  date  for  the  taking  of  the  vote,  then  the 
Journals  record  no  sitting  on  that  day.  If  7th  April  be  the 
correct  date,  then  the  Journals  omit  the  fact  that  Drs. 
Heath  and  Bonner  were  in  attendance,  though  they  are 
distinctly  stated  to  have  voted  in  the  minority.  Under 
these  circumstances,  it  is  enough  merely  to  record  the  fact 
that  the  Bill  passed,  and  was  entrusted  to  the  Solicitor- 
General  and  Mr.  Dr.  Vaughan  for  transfer  to  the  House  of 
Commons.  During  its  passage  through  the  Upper  House 
it  had  received  many  additions,  and,  in  its  amended  form, 
as  it  reached  the  Commons  on  7th  April,  there  to  be  read 
a  first  time  on  that  same  day,  it  not  only  enabled  the 
Crown  to  take  possession  of  episcopal  temporalities  during 
a  vacancy,  but  also  to  effect  a  forced  exchange  of  them  for 
a  nominal  equivalent  of  tithes  and  impropriated  livings. 
To  what  good  purpose  this  measure  was  put  when  it  had 
become  statute  law,  the  next  few  months  were  to  show. 
It  was  read  a  second  time  on  8th  April,  but  D'Ewes  says 
that  no  mention  is  made  either  that  it  was  referred  to  a 
committee,  or  ordered  to  be  engrossed,  "  because  it  had 
been  formerly  sent  from  the  Lords."  This  statement  may, 
of  course,  be  referred  to  the  considerable  amendments  it 
had  received  at  their  hands.  Its  third  reading  was  taken 
on  17th  April,  on  which  occasion  it  passed  the  Lower 
House,  and  the  numbers  for  and  against  it  are  recorded. 
This  solitary  instance  is  the  more  valuable,  as  it  shows  that 
the  Commons  were  not  so  subservient  as  the  Lords ;  and 


70         ELIZABETH'S  FIRST  PARLIAMENT 

though  those  voting  in  favour  of  the  Bill  were  in  a  majority 
of  44  in  a  house  of  224  members,  the  90  of  the  minority  do 
at  least  afford  a  ray  of  consolation,  as  representing  a  solid 
phalanx  of  support  to  old  institutions.  Even  a  Protestant 
historian  like  Collier  was  moved  to  exclaim,  "Could  I  recover 
the  names  of  those  ninety  gentlemen  who  dissented,  I 
would  do  them  the  justice  to  transmit  their  memory  to 
posterity.  But  they  will  suffer  nothing  by  the  silence  of 
records.  For  if  the  rest  of  their  lives  answered  this  vote, 
they  will  always  stand  in  a  much  better  register  of  honour 
than  history  can  give  them."  *  Feria's  report  to  King  Philip 
about  this  Bill  is  short  and  to  the  point.  "  In  the  Parlia- 
ment during  these  last  days  they  have  debated  about  taking 
away  the  valuable  possessions  of  the  bishoprics,  in  order 
that  the  Queen  may  confer  them  upon  whom  she  wished,  and 
appoint  to  each  bishop  by  way  of  compensation,  certain 
tithes,  things  of  small  moment  and  of  little  worth."2  II 
Schifanoya,  though  less  exact  in  his  information,  neverthe- 
less conveyed  to  the  Castellan  of  Mantua  an  impression 
not  far  removed  from  the  truth.  "  A  statute  has  been  en- 
acted in  Parliament,"  he  wrote,  "  limiting  the  revenues  of 
bishops  to  (I  believe)  £500  annually,  and  it  seems  to  me 
that  the  bishops  will  be  deprived  of  all  impropriated  bene- 
fices, a  great  number  of  which  the  good  and  holy  Queen 
Mary  had  restored  to  them."  3  The  Journals  are  silent  as  to 
the  further  progress  of  this  Bill  through  the  House  of 
Lords ;  but  its  scope  ensured  its  safe  passage.  Burnet  points 
out  that  a  similar  measure  found  favour  in  Edward  VI's 
reign,  since  the  courtiers  practically  got  all  the  Church 
lands  divided  amongst  themselves.  He  suggested  that  it 
was  currently  believed  in  1559  that  this  statute  would  result 
in  another  robbery  of  the  Church  without  any  enrichment 
of  the  Crown.  I  f  so,  the  courtiers  of  1 5  59  had  not  yet  learnt 
to  understand  Elizabeth's  character.4 

1  Eccl.  Hist.,  vi,  p.  221. 

'l  Chron.  Belg.,  No.  cccxxxv,  i,  p.  495,  nth  April,  1559. 

'J   Venetian  Papers,  No.  58,  nth  April,  1559. 

4  "  Many  had  observed  that  in  Edward  VI's  time  under  a  pretence  of 


ELIZABETH'S  FIRST  PARLIAMENT         71 

After  what  had  already  passed,  it  was  unlikely  that 
much,  if  any,  opposition  would  be  offered  to  the  Bill  for 
the  "  Dissolution  of  Monasteries  erected  since  the  death  of 
Edward  VI,"1  introduced  into  the  House  of  Commons  on 
24th  April.  On  that  date  it  had  its  first,  on  the  25th  its 
second,  reading,  and  on  the  27th  a  proviso  was  added;  and 
in  this  form  it  passed  its  third  reading  and  was  sent  to  the 
Lords.  D'Ewes  gives  the  29th  as  the  date  of  the  third 
reading,  but  the  discrepancy  is  immaterial.  The  Lords' 
Journal  is  silent,  but  that  of  the  Commons  notes  that  on 
6th  May  the  Bill  came  back  from  the  Lords  with  three 
provisos,  which  had  been  added  by  them.  D'Ewes  supple- 
ments the  Journals  in  some  small  degree,  noting  that  on 
28th  April  provisos  to  this  Bill  were  read  in  the  Commons 
a  first  and  second  time,  that  on  the  29th  they  passed  the 
third  stage,  and  that  the  Bill  was  then  sent  to  the  Lords, 
whence  it  returned  on  6th  May,  "  with  three  provisos  of 
their  lordships."  Though  the  details  may  be  defective,  the 
result  is  definite  enough.  The  Bill  became  law;  and, 
thereby,  Dartford,  Sheen,  Greenwich,  St.  Bartholomew's, 
Smithfield,  and  Westminster  ceased  to  exist  after  a  short 
renewal  of  conventual  activity.*    From  the  first,  the  result 

giving  some  endowments  to  the  Crown,  the  courtiers  got  all  the  Church- 
lands  divided  amongst  themselves ;  so  it  was  believed  the  use  to  be 
made  of  this  would  be  the  robbing  of  the  Church,  without  enriching 
the  Crown." — Hist.  Reform.,  ed.  1679,  pt.  ii,  pp.  394-5. 

'    1  Eliz.  c.  24. 

2  On  2nd  May  II  Schifanoya  informed  the  Castellan  of  Mantua 
that  "  Parliament  will  rise  this  week,  the  two  Houses  having  enacted 
that  all  the  convents  and  monasteries  of  friars,  monks,  nuns,  and 
Hospitallers  of  St.  John  of  Jerusalem  are  to  be  suppressed  as  hereto- 
fore, and  all  these  religious  to  be  expelled.  Such  of  them  who  will 
take  the  oath  against  the  pontifical  authority,  and  approve  the  new 
laws,  abjuring  their  own  professions,  are  to  receive  pensions  for  their 
maintenance ;  but  the  greater  part  of  them  have  left  the  kingdom  in 
order  not  to  take  such  an  oath  "  ( Venetian  Papers,  No.  68).  Though 
this  statement  was  slightly  premature,  II  Schifanoya  had  realised  that 
the  final  steps  could  not  be  averted.  On  4th  May,  Tiepolo  wrote  to 
the  Doge  of  Venice  that  "in  the  Lower  House  fresh  measures  have 
been  proposed  and  they  talk  about  expelling  the  friars  and  nuns,  the 


72         ELIZABETH'S  FIRST  PARLIAMENT 

was  so  far  a  foregone  conclusion,  that  II  Schifanoya 
wrote  thus,  on  25th  April,  to  Vivaldino:  "Already  in  the 
Lower  House  they  have  carried  the  Bill  to  expel  all  friars 
and  monks,  nuns  and  hospitallers,  destroying  everything, 
and  assigning  the  revenues  to  the  Queen,  who  will  gain  but 
little  in  the  end;  for  they  all  make  demands  of  her — some 
for  a  piece  of  land,  some  for  a  garden,  some  for  a  house, 
and  some  for  the  fee  simple  of  estates  for  their  residence; 
nor  can  she  refuse,  not  having  anything  else  to  give  them, 
from  the  poverty  of  the  Crown ;  so  for  this  reason  every- 
thing will  go  to  the  bad.  There  is  no  doubt  of  the  Bill 
passing,  as  it  favours  personal  interests,  and  also  because 
they  will  not  hear  mention  made  of  friars  or  nuns,  whom 
they  call  'rabble.'"1 

It  now  remains  to  consider  in  some  detail  the  two  most 

I  important  Acts  passed  in  this  momentous  session.  The 
one  is  the  Act  repudiating  the  Supremacy  of  the  Pope  and 
annexing  that  Spiritual  Headship  to  the  Crown;2  the 
other  was    for  the  purpose   of  establishing  the  Book    of 

I  Common  Prayer,  and  the  rites  and  ceremonies  to  be 
observed  in  the  parliamentary  Established  Church.3 

The  former  of  these  two  measures  was,  of  course,  the 
corner  stone  of  the  edifice  of  the  Establishment:  on  it  all 
else  depended.  It  occupied  the  attention  of  the  legislators 
in  both  Houses  throughout  the  session,  and,  as  it  was  frankly 
recognised,  it  overshadowed  in  importance  all  other  business. 
The  battle  raged  so  fiercely  over  it,  passions  were  so 
aroused  by  it,  that  it  has  become  impossible  to  follow  the 
measure  through  all  the  stages  and  changes  necessitated 
by  violent  and  strenuous  opposition  in  both  Houses. 
Nevertheless,  the  main  features  of  the  discussion  come  out 
with  sufficient  clearness  for  all  practical  purposes  in  the 
Journals  of  the  Houses  and  in  Sir  Simon  D'Ewes's  account 
of  the  parliamentary  transactions  of  that  period. 

result  being  very  doubtful"— a  piece  of  optimism  not  justified  by  the 
events  of  the  preceding  three  months.    (Cf.  Venetian  Papers,  No.  69.) 

1    Venetian  Papers,  No.  64.  2  1  Eliz.  c.  1. 

3  I  Eliz.  c.  2. 


ELIZABETH'S  FIRST  PARLIAMENT         73 

The  Bill  took  its  rise  in  the  House  of  Commons,  where 
it  was  read  arrTrst  time  on  9th  February.  As  it  was  then 
worded,  it  was  "  A  Bill  to  avoid,"  that  is,  to  eject  or  annul 
the  papal  Supremacy;  but,  for  obvious  reasons,  this  title 
was  at  a  later  stage  altered  to  that  under  which  it  now 
stands  in  the  statute  book :  "  An  Act  to  restore  to  the  I 
Crown  the  ancient  jurisdiction  over  the  estate  ecclesiasti- 
cal and  spiritual,  etc."  The  former  was  too  crude,  as 
frankly  expressing  the  real  state  of  the  case — a  break  with 
the  past;  the  second  conveyed  the  impression  of  securing 
a  return  to  a  former  condition. 

Much  as  rumour  had  spread  abroad  that  a  change  in 
religion  was  about  to  be  effected  in  Parliament,  the  terms 
of  the  Bill  must  have  been  unsatisfactory,  or  they  must 
have  come  almost  in  the  nature  of  a  surprise  to  those  who 
were  not  cognisant  of  the  secret  meeting  which  had  taken 
place  in  Canon  Row;  and  time  was  needed  to  grasp  the 
significance  of  its  clauses.  Recourse  must  be  had  to  some 
such  explanation  to  account  for  the  fact  that  no  further 
discussion  is  recorded  as  following  this  first  reading  for 
four  days;  but  the  13th,  14th,  and  15th  of  February  were 
devoted  to  debating  the  terms  of  the  measure.  Though  it 
is  not  so  stated  in  the  Journals,  it  is  probable  that  the  second 
reading  took  place  on  the  13th.  On  that  day  II  Schifanoya 
wrote  to  Vivaldino,  and  his  remarks  evidently  refer  to  the 
debate  following  the  introduction  of  the  Bill.  "  The  affairs 
of  religion  in  this  kingdom  are  going  from  bad  to  worse," 
he  said,  "although  a  proposal  was  twice  debated,  and  not 
carried,  to  give  her  Majesty  the  title  of  Supreme  Head  of 
the  Anglican  Church;  yet  from  what  is  seen,  it  will  inevit- 
ably pass.  They  have  already  settled  to  give  back  to  the 
Crown  all  the  benefices  and  tenths,  which  for  conscience' 
sake  had  been  restored  by  the  late  Queen,  none  of  whose 
Acts  now  remain  valid,  those  of  Cardinal  Pole  likewise 
being  annulled."1  On  15th  February  the  Bill  was  com- 
mitted to  Sir  Anthony  Coke  and  Mr.  Knollys,  two  ardent 
champions,  be  it  noted,  of  the  new  order.  Nearly  a  week 
1    Venetian  Papers,  No.  23. 


74         ELIZABETH'S  FIRST  PARLIAMENT 

passed,  while  it  was  being  subjected  to  revision ;  and  then 
on  2 1 st  February  it  again  came  before  the  House,  on  which 
date  it  was  entered  in  the  Journals  as  a  first  reading,  with 
the  significant  addition  of  '  nova,'  showing  that  in  the 
interval  it  had  been  practically  remodelled.  What  were 
the  differences  between  the  original  draft,  as  it  was  read  on 
9th  February,  and  the  revised  version,  as  it  was  presented 
on  the  2 1st,  will,  perhaps,  never  be  known ;  one  thing,  how- 
ever, is  evident:  so  energetic  had  the  opposition  been  to 
the  original  draft  that  its  promoters  found  it  expedient  to 
modify  its  terms  to  avoid  the  danger  of  its  being  thrown  out 
altogether.  On  22nd  February  it  passed  its  second  reading, 
and  was  ordered  to  be  engrossed;  and  on  the  25th  it  was 
read  a  third  time  :  an  indication  that  it  met  with  a  more 
favourable  reception  from  the  members  after  having  under- 
gone its  pruning ;  for  the  expedition  of  the  later  stages  is 
in  somewhat  marked  contrast  with  the  leisureliness  of  the 
previous  week.  In  the  Journals  of  the  Lower  House  it  is 
entered  on  25th  February,  as  "  the  Bill  for  Supremacy  of 
the  Churches  of  England  and  Ireland,  and  abolishing  of 
the  Bishop  of  Rome."  It  contained  some  provisos  con- 
nected with  certain  petitions  about  matrimonial  dispensa- 
tions lately  made  to  Rome,  with  the  object  doubtless  of 
giving  point  to  the  necessity  of  keeping  such  applications 
for  settlement  in  the  Consistorial  Court  of  Canterbury.1 
Feria  throws  some  light  on  the  methods  by  which  the  Bill 
was  apparently  jockeyed  through  the  Lower  House  by 
Cecil.  Writing  to  King  Philip,  on  26th  February,  he  said: 
"  I  hope  to  see  her  [the  Queen]  to-morrow  and  speak  to  her 
about  the  matter  of  religion,  because  yesterday  those  of 
the  Lower  House  of  Parliament  voted  that  the  supreme 
ecclesiastical  power  should  be  attached  to  the  Crown  of  the 

1  Cf.  Acts  of  the  Privy  Council,  vii,  p.  II,  1st  December,  1558.  "A 
letter  to  Sir  Edward  Carne  at  Rome,  requiring  that  forasmuch  as  he 
was  heretofore  placed  there  as  a  public  person  by  reason  of  his 
ambassade,  he  should  therefore  from  henceforth  forbear  to  use  his 
authority  in  soliciting  or  procuring  of  anything  in  the  matter  of  matri- 
mony depending  between  Mr.  Chitwood  and  Mr.  Tyrrell." 


ELIZABETH'S  FIRST  PARLIAMENT         75 

kings  of  England,  notwithstanding  that  some  spoke  in 
favour  of  moderation,  in  so  much  that  it  was  necessary,  in 
order  to  succeed  with  his  iniquitous  scheme  for  Secretary 
Cecil  to  throw  the  matter  into  confusion,  and  so  passed  it.1 
To-morrow  the  Bill  will  go  to  the  Upper  House,  where  the 
bishops  and  some  others  are  resolved  to  die  sooner  than 
agree  to  it  because  they  [the  reformers]  seek  to  bring  it  to 
pass  that  the  entire  kingdom  shall  swear  to  observe  this 
clause,  and  that  those  who  refuse  to  do  so  shall  be  ac- 
counted traitors,  as  in  the  time  of  King  Henry."" 

As  Feria  had  stated,  the  Bill  was  sent  to  the  Lords  on 
27th  February,  its  committal  from  the  Commons,  and  its 
reception  in  the  Upper  House  on  the  same  date  being  both 
scrupulously  recorded  in  the  Journals.  It  was  read  a  first 
time  in  the  Lords  on  28th  February.  Then  an  interval  of 
a  fortnight  occurred  before  the  second  reading  was  reached 
on  Monday,  13th  March.  That  interval  of  supposed  rest  is 
but  apparent :  due  to  the  silence  of  the  Journals  as  to  any 
intermediate  debates.  But  II  Schifanoya  has  preserved 
for  us  the  fact  that  a  fierce  contest  had  been  waged  during 
that  time.  Writing  on  14th  March  to  Vivaldino  he  said: 
"  Although  the  Lower  House  passed  the  Bill  appointing 
Queen  Elizabeth  Supreme  Head  of  the  Church,  neverthe- 
less, in  the  Upper  House,  after  very  great  altercatio?i  and 
disputes  on  the  part  of  the  bishops  and  of  other  good  and 
pious  peers,  the  question  has  been  consigned  to  silence  for 
the .  last  few  days.  .  .  .  But  in  the  meanwhile  the  Court 
preachers,  in  the  presence  of  her  Majesty  and  the  people, 
are  doing  their  utmost  to  convert  the  latter,  seeking  to 
prove  by  their  false  arguments  that  the  Pope  has  no 
authority,  and  uttering  the  most  base  and  abominable 
things  that  were  ever  heard  against  the  Apostolic   See.3 

1  "  De  manera  que  fue  necesario,  para  salir  con  su  maldad,  que  el 
Secretario  Sicel  se  metiese  la  cosa  en  garbullo,  y  asi  paso."  The  con- 
temporary English  phrase  ran:  "to  throw  into  a  garboyle." 

-  Chron.  Belg.,  No.  CCCIII,  i,  p.  444. 

3  This  corroborates  Cox's  own  statement  to  Weidner,  that  he  and 
others  had  been  "  thundering  forth  in  our  pulpits,  and  especially  before 


76         ELIZABETH'S  FIRST  PARLIAMENT 

For  this  and  other  reasons  many  persons  are  of  opinion 
that  the  Bill  will  pass  the  Upper  House  likewise,  against 
the  consent  of  the  prelates  and  of  other  pious  lay  peers,  as 
will  be  known  in  the  course  of  this  week,  for  they  talk  of 
proroguing  Parliament  before  the  end  of  the  month."1 
-Mr.  Maitland,  discussing  this  debate  in  the  Cambridge 
Modern  History,  says  that  the  bishops  were  opposed  to 
the  Bill  because  in  it  they  saw  "  a  measure  which  would 
leave  the  lives  of  all  open  Romanists  at  the  mercy  of  the 
Government."2  That  is  a  true  statement,as  far  as  it  goes,  but 
it  does  not  go  far  enough.  Such  a  motive,  though  adequate 
in  itself,  by  no  means  accounts  for  their  opposition,  as  their 
subsequent  history  attests.  It  is  absolutely  certain  that 
the  sole  principle  for  which  they  were  fighting  was  the  pre- 
servation of  the  unity  of  the  Church. 

To  return,  however,  to  the  Bill.  D'Ewes  has  preserved 
for  us  the  names  of  the  Peers,  Spiritual  and  Temporal,  to 
whom  the  Bill  was  entrusted  for  revision  in  committee  on 
13th  March.  Two  bishops,  Turberville  of  Exeter,  and 
Oglethorpe  of  Carlisle,  were  assigned  a  place  on  this  com- 
mittee, and  they  had  the  support  of  the  Marquess  of  Win- 
chester, the  Earls  of  Westmoreland  and  Shrewsbury, 
Viscount  Montague,  and  Lords  Morley,  Rich,  and  North; 
while  those  whose  sympathies  were  more  or  less  openly 
with  the  reformers  were  the  Duke  of  Norfolk,  the  Earls  of 
Rutland,  Sussex,  and  Pembroke,  and  Lords  Clynton  and 
Willoughby.  As  the  terms  of  the  original  Bill  are  not 
known  to  us,  it  is  impossible  to  state  what  precise  form  the 
labours  of  this  committee  finally  assumed,  since  the  changes 
they  may  have  suggested  were,  possibly,  incorporated  in 
the  Bill  as  it  was  voted  upon.  On  15th  March  it  is  simply 
recorded  that  there  was  read  a  first  time  the  "  Bill  agreed 

our  Queen  Elizabeth,  that  the  Roman  Pontiff  is  truly  antichrist,  and 
that  traditions  are  for  the  most  part  mere  blasphemies.  At  length 
many  of  the  nobility,  and  vast  numbers  of  the  people,  began  by  degrees 
to  return  to  their  senses,  etc."  (1  Zur.,  p.  27,  No.  11,  20th  May, 
1559)- 
1    Venetian  Papers,  No.  40.  s  Vol.  ii,  p.  567. 


ELIZABETH'S  FIRST  PARLIAMENT         77 

upon  by  the  Lords  to  be  annexed  to  the  Bill  of  Suprem- 
acy." Mr.  Maitland,  however,  says  in  the  Cambridge 
Modern  History  x  that  "  the  project  had  taken  a  far  milder 
form ;  forfeiture  of  office  and  benefice  was  to  be  the  pun- 
ishment of  those  who  would  not  swear."  So  far  as  may  be 
gathered,  the  original  draft  contained  clauses  to  regulate 
the  liturgical  services;  in  committee  these  proved  so  ob- 
noxious to  the  majority  that  they  were  eliminated.  Thus 
much  appears  from  the  account  written  by  II  Schifanoya,  a 
portion  of  which  evidently  refers  to  the  work  of  this  com- 
mittee. "The  Earl  of  Pembroke,  the  Earl  of  Shrewsbury, 
Viscount  Montague  and  Lord  Hastings  [of  Loughborough] 
did  not  fail  in  their  duty  like  true  soldiers  of  Christ  to  re- 
sist the  Commons,  whom  they  compelled  to  modify  a  book 
passed  by  the  Commons  forbidding  the  Mass  to  be  said  or 
the  Communion  to  be  administered  except  at  the  table  in 
the  manner  of  Edward  VI ;  nor  were  the  divine  offices  to 
be  performed  in  church;  priests  likewise  being  allowed  to 
marry,  and  the  Christian  religion  and  the  Sacraments 
being  absolutely  abolished;  adding  thereto  many  extra- 
ordinary penalties  against  delinquents.  By  a  majority  of 
votes  they  have  decided  that  the  aforesaid  things  shall  be 
expunged  from  the  book,  and  that  the  Masses,  Sacraments, 
and  the  rest  of  the  divine  offices  shall  be  performed  as 
hitherto;  but  some  persons  say  that  this  decision  cannot 
last  long,  the  Catholics  insisting  at  any  rate  on  retaining 
the  Mass,  the  Offices,  and  the  rest  of  the  Sacraments,  and 
the  Protestants  insisting  on  the  contrary.  Although  the 
latter  increase  in  number,  they  are  not  so  powerful  as  the 
Catholics,  who  comprise  all  the  chief  personages  of  the 
kingdom,  with  very  great  command  in  their  estates,  having 
also  many  followers ;  and  the  greater  part  of  the  common 
people  out  of  London,  in  several  provinces,  are  much 
attached  to  the  Roman  Catholic  religion."  2 

It  was  this  failure  on  the  part  of  the  Government  to 
secure  a  parliamentary  abolition  of  the  Mass  which  was 
responsible  for  a  royal   proclamation,  as  recorded   by  II 

1  Vol.  ii,  p.  567.  -  Venetian  Papers,  No.  45,  21st  March,  1558-9. 


78         ELIZABETH'S  FIRST  PARLIAMENT 

Schifanoya.  "  During  this  interval  they  had  ordered  and 
printed  a  proclamation  for  everyone  to  take  the  Communion 
in  both  kinds  (sub  utraque  specie).  Some  other  reforms  of 
theirs  had  also  been  ordered  for  publication,  but  subse- 
quently nothing  else  was  done,  except  that  on  Easter  Day 
her  Majesty  appeared  in  chapel,  where  Mass  was  sung  in 
English,  according  to  the  use  of  her  brother,  King  Edward, 
and  the  Communion  was'received  in  both  kinds,  kneeling 
.  .  .  nor  did  he  [the  celebrant]  wear  anything  but  the 
mere  surplice,  having  divested  himself  of  the  vestments  in 
which  he  had  sung  Mass;  and  thus  her  Majesty  was 
followed  by  many  Lords,  both  of  the  Council,  and  others."  ' 
From  this  digression  a  return  must  be  made  to  the  pro- 
ceedings in  Parliament.  The  Journals  of  the  Upper  House 
merely  mention,  that  on  17th  March,  the  second  reading 
"  for  certain  provisos  and  amendments  to  be  put  in  the 
Bill  of  Supremacy,"  passed,  and  the  order  for  engrossing 
was  made,  as  before  stated;  and  that  next  day,  18th  March, 
it  passed  the  third  reading,  notwithstanding  the  opposition 
of  the  Spiritual  Peers,  namely,  the  Archbishop  of  York,  the 
Bishops  of  London,  Winchester,  Worcester,  Llandaff,  Cov- 
entry and  Lichfield,  Exeter,  Chester,  Carlisle,  and  the 
Abbot  of  Westminster,  supported  by  the  Earl  of  Shrews- 
bury and  Viscount  Montague.  Feria  furnishes  a  few 
valuable  details,  such  as  the  absence  of  some  of  the  peers, 
and  he  evidently  ascribed  their  non-attendance  to  antipathy 
to  the  Bill  yet  a  lack  of  courage  to  be  found  amongst  its 
open  opponents.  "  This  is  how  things  stand  up  to  the 
present  moment,"  he  wrote  to  Philip.  "  All  this  time  these 
heretics  have  been  endeavouring  to  see  how  they  could 
attain  what  they  had  before  proposed ;  and,  for  the  sake  of 
peace,  on  Wednesday,  the  1 5th  of  this  month,  they  proposed 

1  Venetian  Papers,  No.  51,  28th  March,  1559.  The  proclamation 
referred  to  was  issued  on  22nd  March,  and  is  thus  entered  in  Dyson's 
Proclamations  of  Q.  Eliz. :  "A  Proclamation  for  the  execution  of  the 
Act  of  1  Ed.  VI,  made  against  such  as  speak  unreverently  of  the 
Sacrament  of  the  Altar,  and  commanding  that  the  same  Sacrament 
should  be  received  in  both  kinds,"  fol.  5. 


ELIZABETH'S  FIRST  PARLIAMENT         79 

what  had  been  introduced  at  the  opening  of  Parliament, 
but  in  more  moderate  terms,  so  that,  as  regards  the  Su- 
premacy, she  might  take  the  title  if  she  wished  to,  in  any 
case  rejecting  the  Pope's  authority;  and  that  all  who  held 
office  or  benefice  of  the  Queen,  should  take  an  oath,  and 
that  if  they  refused  it,  that  they  should  suffer  deprivation  ; 
and  for  the  same  offence  that  all  ecclesiastics  [would  be  de- 
prived] of  their  offices  and  benefices,  that  graduates  of  the 
Universities  and  Fellows  of  colleges  would  lose  the  places 
and  emoluments  which  they  hold.  All  voted  in  favour  of 
this  except  the  Earl  of  Shrewsbury,  Lord  Montague,  the 
bishops,  and  the  Abbot  of  Westminster.  I  believe  that 
some  of  the  lords  were  not  present;  but  I  shall  find  out 
more  exactly  how  each  one  acted  so  as  to  inform  your 
Majesty.  .  .  .  Paget  did  not  leave  his  house  because  he  had 
a  double  quartan,  and  was  very  unwell."  1  Later  on,  Feria 
bore  testimony  to  Paget's  evident  earnestness.  "  Paget  is 
better,"  he  wrote,  "and  has  gone  twice  or  thrice  to  the 
palace  in  a  litter.  .  .  .  He  is  greatly  persecuted  and  out  of 
favour;  and  wishes  to  assure  me  that  he  is  sound  in 
religious  matters."2  In  the  earlier  despatch,  Feria  rightly 
told  his  royal  master  that  it  would  be  well  to  look  into  the 
conduct  of  these  peers,  many  of  whom  were  in  receipt  of 
pensions  from  Philip,  and  to  consider  the  advisability  of 
transferring  his  bounties  elsewhere.  "  All  these  bishops  are 
determined  to  die  for  the  Faith,  and  in  such  a  way  that 
your  Majesty  would  be  astonished  if  you  realised  how  firm 
and  praiseworthy  they  have  been  and  are.  If  I  had  money 
and  permission  from  your  Majesty  I  would  spend  it  to 
better  profit  in  giving  it  to  them,  than  in  paying  pensions 
to  these  false  men  who  have  thus  bartered  God  and  the 
honour  of  His  kingdom."  Then  his  foresight  failed  him, 
for  he  continued:  "I  am  convinced  that  religion  will  not 
be  overturned  here,  because  the  Catholic  party  is  greater 
than  the  rest  by  two-thirds."  3 

1  Chron.  Belg,  No.  CCCXXli,  i,  p.  475,  19th  March,  1558-9. 

2  Ibid.,  No.  cccxxxv,  i,  p.  494,  nth  April,  1559. 

3  Ibid.,  i,  p.  475,  ///  supra. 


So         ELIZABETH'S  FIRST  PARLIAMENT 

On  1 8th  March,  as  an  inspection  of  the  Journals  attests, 
the  distribution  of  the  voting  strength  in  the  Lords  was  as 
follows:  Forty-five  Peers,  Spiritual  and  Temporal,  were 
present,  and  the  proxies  held  by  one  or  another  brought  up 
the  votes  cast  to  seventy-two.  Twenty-eight  might  have 
been  at  the  service  of  the  Catholic  party  as  against  forty- 
four  controlled  by  those  leaning  towards  reform,  leaving 
the  victory  in  their  hands  by  a  margin  of  sixteen  votes. 
This  is  based  on  the  most  favourable  estimate  of  the 
strength  of  the  Catholic  interest ;  but  if  D'Ewes  be  correct 
as  to  the  names  of  those  who  alone  stood  by  the  past 
against  innovation,  a  revision  of  the  distribution  must  be 
made,  and  the  votes  must  have  been,  Content,  52;  Non- 
Content,  20;  or  a  majority  of  thirty-two  against  the 
bishops.  It  will  readily  be  seen  that  under  no  circum- 
stances could  they  have  prevailed  against  such  odds;  hence 
the  pluck  they  displayed  in  their  fight  cannot  but  commend 
them  to  us  even  at  this  distance  of  time,  as  it  did  to  those 
who  were  witnesses  of  the  stand  they  made  against  the 
encroachments  of  heresy  and  secularism.  The  speeches 
delivered  by  Archbishop  Heath  and  Scot,  Bishop  of  Ches- 
ter, have  been  preserved,  and  will  repay  perusal.1  The 
Archbishop  opposed  the  transfer  of  Supremacy  from  Pope 
to  Queen  on  the  ground  that  forsaking  the  Holy  See  in- 
volved the  abandonment  of  all  the  General  Councils,  of  all 
the  canonical  and  ecclesiastical  laws  of  the  Church  of 
Christ,  of  the  judgment  of  all  other  Christian  princes,  of 
the  unity  of  the  Christian  Church,  and  "  by  leaping  out  of 
St.  Peter's  ship,  hazard  ourselves  to  be  overwhelmed  and 
drowned  in  the  waters  of  schism,  sects,  and  divisions."  His 
strongest  point,  however,  was  to  show,  in  considering  the 
nature  of  the  Supremacy,  that  it  was  neither  within  the 
competence  of  Parliament  to  bestow  such  a  power,  nor 
within  that  of  the  Sovereign  to  accept  it.  The  Bishop  of 
Chester  further  developed  a  portion  of  his  Metropolitan's 

1  They  need  not  here  be  reproduced,  as  they  are  available  in  print, 
being  given  more  or  less  in  extenso  in  Strype,  Collier,  Parker's 
Synodalia,  Tierney's  Dodd,  etc.,  etc. 


ELIZABETH'S  FIRST  PARLIAMENT  Si 

argument,  laying  stress  on  the  importance  of  working  for 
unity  rather  than  with  a  view  of  multiplying  divisions,  and 
pointed  out  that  even  at  that  date  there  were  "  thirty-four 
sundry  sects  in  Christendom."  He,  moreover,  reminded  his 
hearers  that  what  had  been  done  in  Henry  VIII's  reign 
had  been  ultra  vires,  and  that  those  who  had  brought  about 
the  schism  had  repented  of  it,  or  had  helped  later  to  undo 
their  own  handiwork.  But  the  majority  was  not  to  be  per- 
suaded either  by  the  earnestness  or  the  eloquence  of  the 
prelates;  and  the  Bill,  having  passed  the  Upper  House, 
was  immediately  sent  back  to  the  Commons,  where  it  was 
received  the  same  day,  Saturday,  18th  March.  The  Lower 
House  set  to  work  upon  "  the  proviso  and  reformation  in 
the  Bill  of  Supremacy  "  on  Monday,  20th  March,  and  got 
through  the  second  and  third  readings  on  the  two  following 
days,  and  forthwith  sent  back  the  result  of  their  delibera- 
tions to  the  Lords,  who,  if  the  Journals  may  be  trusted, 
pushed  them  through  three  readings  on  that  very  day.  The 
Journals  are  obscure,  but  it  is  possible  that  these  hasty 
divisions  were  taken  over  a  new  proviso  stated  to  have  been 
added  in  the  House  of  Commons.  The  prelates  were  the 
only  dissentients.  D'Ewes  says:  "  these  popish  clergymen, 
who  having  before  opposed  in  vain  the  passing  of  the  Bill 
on  Saturday,  18th  March,  do  here  likewise  do  their  utter- 
most to  stop  even  the  proviso  which  was  added  unto  it  by 
the  House  of  Commons."  II  Schifanoya,  writing  to  Vivaldino 
on  21st  March,  evidently  refers  to  this  difference  of  opinion 
which  had  manifested  itself  between  the  two  Houses,  when 
he  said :  "  The  members  of  the  Lower  House,  seeing  that 
the  Lords  passed  this  article  of  the  Queen's  Supremacy  of 
the  Church,  but  not  as  the  Commons  drew  it  up — the  Lords 
cancelling  the  aforesaid  clauses,1  and  modifying  some  others 
— grew  angry,  and  would  consent  to  nothing,  but  are  in 
very  great  controversy,  as  they  must  of  necessity  ratify 
what  the  Lords  have  done  in  the  Upper  House.  From  this 
discord  still  greater  good  is  anticipated." a 

1  See  ante,  about  liturgical  matters. 

2  Venetian  Papers,  No.  45. 

G 


82         ELIZABETH'S  FIRST  PARLIAMENT 

Considerable  obscurity  here  hangs  over  this  much-de- 
bated Bill  for  the  Supremacy.  The  Journal  of  the  Lords 
registers  the  provisos  as  passed  on  22nd  March.  Nothing 
more,  therefore,  should  have  been  heard  of  the  Bill  if 
things  had  taken  a  normal  course,  till  the  Queen's  assent 
was  given  to  it  at  the  end  of  the  session.  But  II  Schifanoya 
wrote  to  Vivaldino  on  28th  March,  1559,  informing  him 
that  "  Parliament  was  not  only  prolonged  till  last  Wednes- 
day, but  has  been  sitting  ever  since,  these  '  Fathers  '  being 
unable  to  agree ;  as,  although  they  had  passed  the  clause 
about  the  Supremacy  of  the  Church,  they  did  so  under 
such  restrictions  that  the  Commons  would  by  no  means 
consent  to  it.  They  are  therefore  in  greater  discord  than 
ever,  and  on  Thursday  after  the  Easter  holidays,  they  will 
sit  again  and  re-consider  the  matter,  which  is  committed 
to  four  good  and  Catholic  bishops,  and  to  four  of  their 
Protestants." '  Meanwhile  Feria,  in  one  of  his  interviews 
with  Elizabeth,  expostulated  with  her  as  to  what  was 
going  on  in  Parliament  as  regards  religion.  She  assured 
him  that  she  did  not  intend  to  call  herself  "  Head  of  the 
Church," 2  and  a  few  days  previously  she  had  explained  to 
him  that,  "  as  regards  the  title  of  '  Head  of  the  Church,'  she 
would  not  take  it ;  but  that  they  sent  every  year  so  much 
money  out  of  her  kingdom  to  the  Pope,  that  she  could  not 
otherwise  remedy  it," 3  thus  seeking  to  justify  the  projected 
schism.  Hence  Feria  ventured  to  suggest  to  his  royal 
master  that  "  it  would  be  well  that  the  Pope  were  informed 
of  the  way  in  which  what  has  been  done  in  Parliament 
against  religion  has  been  effected ;  because  it  is  very  dif- 
ferent from  what  took  place  in  the  time  of  Kings  Henry 
and  Edward;  and  if  he  [the  Pope]  decided  to  proceed 
against  the  Queen  and  the  kingdom,  he  should  except  the 
bishops  and  others  who  opposed  them  in  Parliament,  and 
the  ecclesiastics  who  had  met  in  Convocation  in  the  great 
church  of  London,  who  drew  up  a  document  very  Catholic 

1  Venetian  Papers,  No.  51. 

2  Chron.  Belg.,  No.  CCCXXVli,  i,  p.  482,  24th  March,  1558-9. 

3  Ibid.,  No.  cccxxn,  i,  p.  475,  19th  March,  1558-9. 


ELIZABETH'S  FIRST  PARLIAMENT         83 

in  tone,  protesting  that  they  confessed  the  Catholic  Faith, 
and  did  not  agree  to  the  discussion  of  points  adverse  to 
it  .  .  .  and  also  all  the  Catholics  in  the  kingdom  who  had 
no  voice  in  Parliament  [i.e.,  in  the  election  of  its  members], 
who  are  the  majority  of  them;  and  to  my  mind,  it  is  of 
great  importance  that,  in  a  Bull,  this  distinction  should  be 
made,  to  favour  and  encourage  the  Catholics,  and  to  bring 
confusion  and  shame  on  the  heretics."  l 

Easter  had  come  and  gone,  the  prorogation  which  had 
been  in  contemplation  had  been  perforce  abandoned  since 
the  main  work  of  the  session  still  dragged  on ; a  hence,  as 
the  point  of  the  royal  Headship  seemed  to  be  the  principal 
bar  to  progress,3  Sir  William  Cecil,  seeking  to  find  a  way 
round  the  difficulty,  came  down  to  the  Lower  House  on 
1  oth  April,  bearing  a  royal  message.  Feria  thus  described 
the  situation  to  King  Philip:  "  The  Queen  has  declared  in 
Parliament  that  she  did  not  wish  to  call  herself  [Supreme] 
Head  of  the  Church;  whereupon  the  heretics  were  dis- 
pleased. Yesterday  Cecil  went  to  the  Lower  House  and 
said  to  them  on  the  Queen's  behalf  that  she  thanked  them 
greatly  for  the  good  will  with  which  they  offered  her  the 
title  of  Supreme  Head  of  the  Church,  but,  out  of  humility, 
she  did  not  wish  to  take  it,  and  ordered  them  to  devise 
some  other  form  to  express  the  Supremacy  and  Primacy. 
He  was  answered  that  this  was  contrary  to  the  Word  of 
God  and  the  Gospel,  and  that  they  wondered  that  each  day 
he  should  come  to  them  with  new  and  contradictory  pro- 
posals." 4  However,  though  the  temper  of  the  House  seemed 
to  be  none  too  complaisant,  a  Government  Bill,  already 
drafted,  was  then  and  there  introduced,   10th  April,  and 

1  Chron.  Belg.,  No.  cccxxvn,  i,  p.  483,  24th  March,  1558-9. 

2  Cf.  Venetian  Papers,  No.  51,  28th  March,  1559. 

3  II  Schifanoya  wrote  on  28th  March  :  "  I  do  not  believe  the  report 
that  the  Queen,  seeing  the  opposition  to  her  title,  Sufiremum  Caput 
Ecclesiae  Anglicanae,  has  determined  her  no  longer  to  accept  it " ; 
and  on  nth  April  "  The  title  of  '  Supreme  Head  of  the  Church '  passed 
through  the  two  Houses,  but  her  Majesty  is  expected  for  some  reason 
not  to  accept  it"  {Venetian  Papers,  No.  58). 

4  Chron.  Belg.,  No.  cccxxxv,  i,  p.  497,  nth  April,  1559. 


84         ELIZABETH'S  FIRST  PARLIAMENT 

read  a  first  time,  D'Ewes  in  his  Journal  calling  it  "  a  new 
Bill  to  avoid  the  usurped  power  claimed  by  any  foreigner 
in  this  realm,  and  for  the  oath  to  be  taken  by  spiritual  and 
temporal  officers."  It  may  here  be  asked  in  what  this  Bill 
differed  from  its  predecessor?  D'Ewes  suggests  an  ex- 
planation, but  was  more  in  the  fog  about  the  actual  facts 
than  we  are;  he  had  not  the  advantage  of  Feria's  cor- 
respondence. "  Whether  the  many  new  additions  and  altera- 
tions in  this  foregoing  Bill  had  made  some  confusion  in  it, 
or  that  the  House  of  Commons  disliked  that  their  Bill 
formerly  passed  with  them  had  received  so  much  reforma- 
tion in  the  Upper  House,  or  for  what  other  cause  I  know 
not;  most  certain  it  is,  that  they  had  no  desire  the  said 
former  Bill  should  be  made  a  perpetual  law  by  her  Majesty's 
royal  assent;  and  thereupon  they  framed  a  new  Bill  to  the 
like  purpose,  in  which  I  suppose  they  included  also  the 
substance  of  all  the  additions,  provisos,  and  amendments 
which  the  Lords  had  annexed  to  their  former  Bill."  The 
liturgical  portion  of  the  old  Bill  did  not  find  a  place  in 
this  one;  it  was  reserved  for  separate  treatment.  In  this 
truncated  form  it  passed  its  second  reading  on  12th  April, 
was  ordered  to  be  engrossed,  and  came  up  for  third  reading 
on  13th  April.  The  following  day  it  was  sent  up  to  the 
Lords.  It  is  clear  that  this  prolonged  discussion  inspired 
Jewel's  words  to  Peter  Martyr:  "Meanwhile  many  altera- 
tions in  religion  are  effected  in  Parliament  .  .  .  they  are 
not  yet  publicly  known,  and  are  often  brought  on  the  anvil 
to  be  hammered  over  again." ' 

In  the  Lords  the  Bill  was  once  more  subjected  to  close 
criticism,  the  first  reading  being  taken  on  15th  April,  and 
on  17th  April,  after  its  second  reading,  it  was  entrusted  to 
a  special  committee2  for  further  consideration. 

1  1  Zwr.,  p.  18,  No.  6,  14th  April,  1559. 

2  Consisting  of  the  Duke  of  Norfolk  (Prot.) ;  the  Earls  of  Arundel 
(Cath.),  Shrewsbury  (C),  Worcester  (C),  Rutland  (P.),  Sussex  (P.), 
Bedford  (P.);  Viscount  Montague  (C);  the  Bishops  of  Ely  (C.)  and 
Carlisle  (C.) ;  Lords  Clynton  (P.),  Howard  of  Effingham  (P.),  Rich  (C), 
Hastings  of  Loughborough  (C),  and  St.  John  of  Bletsho  (P.). 


ELIZABETH'S  FIRST  PARLIAMENT         85 

While  the  Bill  was  still  in  their  hands  (for  the  protracted 
period  of  nine  days)  Feria  wrote  to  Philip:  "The  Queen 
having  told  Parliament  that  she  did  not  wish  to  take  the 
title  of  Head  of  the  Church,  and  having  ordered  them  to 
devise  another  form,  they  have  granted  her  the  title  of 
Governess  [Gobernadora]  of  the  Church,  seeming  to  think 
that  this  form  is  different  to  the  other.  In  the  same  Bill  it 
is  decreed  that  those  who  refuse  to  accept  it,  shall  lose  their 
places  and  emoluments  if  servants  or  officials  of  any  degree 
whatsoever  of  the  Queen ;  if  ecclesiastics  or  prebendaries 
in  colleges,  they  shall  lose  their  dignities,  benefices  and 
prebends;  to  which  is  further  added  that  any  who  shall 
harbour  or  help  any  of  these  with  their  goods  or  in  any 
other  way,  shall  incur  the  same  penalty,  and  their  lives 
shall  be  at  the  mercy  of  the  Queen — a  form  of  penalty 
contained  in  one  of  the  statutes  of  the  realm  entitled 
Praemunire,  which  they  now  apply  to  this  case.  This  Bill 
has  already  passed  in  the  Lower  House ;  in  the  Upper  it 
has  been  read,  and  the  Archbishop  of  York  has  opposed 
it."1  II  Schifanoya,  writing  on  25th  April  to  Vivaldino, 
said :  "  On  my  return  to  London,  I  find  that  Parliament 
has  come  to  no  further  conclusion  about  the  title  '  Supremum 
caput  in  terris  Ecclesiae  Anglicanae'  because  her  Majesty 
does  not  wish  it;  but  they  have  settled  for  her  to  be 
Governess-general  of  spiritual  and  temporal  matters  in  this 
kingdom." 2 

The  conclusions  arrived  at  in  committee  were  submitted 
to  the  House  of  Lords  on  26th  April,  when  the  Bill  passed 
its  third  reading  and  was  sent  back  to  the  Commons  with 
a  proviso  added.    No  further  reference  to  it  occurs  in  the 

1  Chron.  Belg.,  No.  CCCXXXVIII,  i,  p.  502,  18th  April,  1559.  In  this 
long  letter  Feria  thus  writes  of  Heath,  Watson,  and  Thirlby :  "  He  of 
York  is  a  good  man ;  and  never  can  England  have  had  such  bishops. 
The  others  [Watson  and  White]  still  remain  prisoners,  he  of  Lincoln 
very  ill.  It  would  be  a  great  loss  if  he  were  to  die,  because  he  is  a  man 
of  greater  vigour  and  learning  than  the  rest.  .  .  .  The  Bishop  of  Ely 
has  done  well  up  to  now  in  the  affairs  connected  with  religion ;  but 
here  they  entertain  but  a  low  opinion  of  him." 

2  Venetian  Pafiers,  No.  64. 


86         ELIZABETH'S  FIRST  PARLIAMENT 

Journals,  so  it  may  be  taken  for  granted  that  the  Lords' 
amendments  were  acceptable  to  the  Commons;  and  when 
the  royal  assent  was  given  to  the  Bill  on  8th  May,  that 
recension  which  we  have  represents  the  draft  sent  down 
by  the  Lords,  agreed  to  in  the  Lower  House;  and  when 
the  Bill  was  enrolled  amongst  the  statutes  of  the  realm, 
England  was  once  more  severed  from  Rome  and  from  the 
unity  of  Christendom  by  Act  of  Parliament. 

This  most  important  Act,  placing  England  once  more 
in  a  state  of  schism,  may  be  thus  summarised.  It  repealed 
Mary's  Act  of  repeal,  thus  reviving  certain  statutes  made 
under  Henry  VIII,1  and  one  passed  during  Edward's 
reign.2  It  also  repealed  the  statute  of  I  and  2  Phil,  and 
Mary,  c.  6,  which  had  revived  the  heresy  Acts.  As  to  its 
own  new  legislation,  all  foreign  authority  within  the  Queen's 
dominions  was  abolished;  ecclesiastical  jurisdiction  was 
annexed  to  the  Crown;  ecclesiastical  commissioners  were 
to  be  appointed,  by  whom  the  oath  of  Supremacy  provided 
by  the  Act  was  to  be  enforced  on  those  liable  to  take  it ; 
the  form  of  the  oath  was  incorporated  in  the  Act,  and 
graduated  penalties  of  deprivation,  fine,  imprisonment,  and 
death  were  to  be  incurred  by  those  refusing  the  said  oath. 
Recalcitrants  were,  moreover,  incapacitated  from  holding 
various  offices  in  Church  and  State,  with  this  limitation, 
that  those  who  held  office  and  refused  the  oath  and  were 
therefore  deprived,  were  to  be  restored  to  the  use  and 
exercise  of  their  said  office  if  they  subsequently  submitted 
and  complied  with  the  Act.  It  may  be  noted  in  passing 
that  no  provision  was  made  for  the  benefit  of  ad  interim 
holders  of  such  offices ;  but  as  such  a  case  never  de  facto 
occurred,  the  objection  and  conjecture  are  purely  of  aca- 
demic interest. 

There  remains  for  consideration  the  Act  of  Uniformity 
which  carried  the  nation  once  more  beyond  the  point  where 

1  23  Hen.  VIII,  c.  9;  24  Hen.  VIII,  c.  12;  24  Hen.  VIII,  c.  20; 
25  Hen.  VIII,  cc.  19,  20,  21;  26  Hen.  VIII,  c.  14;  28  Hen.  VIII,  c.  16; 
32  Hen.  VIII,  c.  38;  37  Hen.  VIII,  c.  17. 

2  1  Ed.  VI,  c.  1. 


ELIZABETH'S  FIRST  PARLIAMENT         87 

Henry  VIII  had  placed  it,  and  restored  the  conditions  that 
prevailed  under  his  son  and  successor,  Edward  VI. 

As  early  as  16th  February,  1558-9,  a  "  Bill  for  Common 
Prayer  and  administering  the  Sacraments"  passed  its  first 
reading  in  the  House  of  Commons,  where  it  had  been  in- 
troduced ;  but  nothing  further  seems  to  have  come  of  it — 
at  least  for  the  time  being.  The  explanation  is  not,  per- 
haps, far  to  seek.  Convocation,  in  the  name  of  the  English 
Church,  was  speaking  just  then  with  no  uncertain  voice  in 
favour  of  the  old  order;  and  those  whose  avowed  and  de- 
termined purpose  it  was  to  subvert  this,  felt  they  would  be 
on  unsafe  ground  till  they  had  such  a  trusty  weapon  in 
their  hands  as  was  provided  by  the  Supremacy  Act,  in  the 
oath  with  its  attendant  pains  and  penalties.  When,  how- 
ever, this  Act  was  so  far  forward  as  to  be  practically  safe, 
there  would  appear  to  have  been  no  longer  any  hesitation 
about  proceeding  with  the  ancillary  Bill ;  hence  on  Tues- 
day, 1 8th  April,  it  reappeared  in  the  Commons  in  a  slightly 
altered  form,  at  least  as  to  title;  and  the  "Bill  for  the 
unity  of  the  service  of  the  Church  and  ministrations  "  was 
read  the  first  time.  Heylin  throws  some  useful  light  upon 
the  policy  underlying  the  measure;  but  neither  he,  nor 
possibly  those  who  were  in  the  first  instance  responsible 
for  it,  fully  appreciated  the  fundamental  differences  which 
caused  the  cleavage  between  Catholics  and  Protestants, 
and  that,  explain  it  as  they  would,  retain  what  they  would, 
expunge  what  they  would,  the  reformers  could  never  make 
the  new  form  of  worship  acceptable  to  Catholics,  if  it  were 
to  be  suitable  to  their  own  wants  and  beliefs.  As  has  been 
said  epigrammatically:  "  It  is  the  Mass  that  matters" — no 
substitute  can  be  found  for  that.  Heylin  states '  that  in 
revising  the  copy  of  Edward's  Book  of  Common  Prayer, 
annexed  as  a  schedule  to  the  Act  of  Parliament,  "  great 
care  was  taken  for  expunging  all  such  passages  in  it  as 
might  give  any  scandal  or  offence  to  the  popish  party,  or 
be  urged  by  them  in  excuse  for  their  not  coming  to  church. 
...  In  the  Litany  .  .  .  there  was  a  prayer  to  be  delivered 
1  Hist,  of  Reform.,  ed.  1670,  p.  ill. 


88         ELIZABETH'S  FIRST  PARLIAMENT 

from  the  tyranny  and  all  the  detestable  enormities  of  the 
Bishop  of  Rome,  which  was  thought  fit  to  be  expunged.  .  .  . 
In  the  first  Liturgy  of  King  Edward,  the  Sacrament  of  the 
Lord's  Body  was  delivered  with  this  benediction.  .  .  .  '  The 
Body  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  which  was  given  for  the 
preservation  of  thy  body  and  soul  to  life  everlasting:  the 
Blood,  etc.,'  which  .  .  .  was  altered  unto  this  form  in  the 
second  Liturgy.  .  .  .  '  Take  and  eat  this  in  remembrance 
that  Christ  died  for  thee,  and  feed  on  Him  in  thy  heart  by 
faith  with  thanksgiving:  Take  and  drink,  etc'  But  the 
revisers  of  the  Book  joined  both  forms  together,  lest  under 
colour  of  rejecting  a  carnal,  they  might  be  thought  also  to 
deny  such  a  Real  Presence  as  was  defended  in  the  writings 
of  the  ancient  Fathers.  Upon  which  ground  they  expunged 
also  a  whole  Rubric  at  the  end  of  the  Communion  Service 
[tending  to  the  denial  of  a  Real  Presence].  And  to  come 
the  closer  to  those  of  the  Church  of  Rome,  it  was  ordered 
by  the  Queen's  Injunctions  that  the  sacramental  bread  .  .  . 
should  be  made  round,  in  fashion  of  the  wafers  used  in  the 
time  of  Queen  Mary  [etc.].  By  which  compliances,  and 
the  expunging  of  the  passages  before  remembered,  the 
Book  was  made  so  passable  amongst  the  Papists,  that  for 
ten  years  they  generally  repaired  to  their  parish  churches, 
without  doubt  or  scruple,  as  is  affirmed  not  only  by  Sir 
Edward  Coke  .  .  .  but  also  by  the  Queen  herself,  in  a  letter 
to  Sir  Francis  Walsingham  .  .  .  the  same  confessed  by 
Sander  also  in  his  book  de  Schismate."  1 

On  19th  April  the  second  reading  was  taken,  and  the 
Bill  was  engrossed.  After  it  had  passed  the  third  reading 
on  20th  April,  it  was  sent  to  the  Lords  on  the  25  th  by  the 
hands  of  Sir  Anthony  Coke  and  others.  Here,  in  D'Ewes's 
Journal,  it  first  received  the  title  by  which  we  know  it: 
"  A  Bill  for  the  Uniformity  of  Common  Prayer  and  Service 
in   the  Church,  and   administration    of  the  Sacraments." 

1  This  quotation  is  given  for  what  it  is  worth  :  it  contains  inaccuracies, 
as  for  instance  about  the  attendance  of  Catholics  at  Common  Prayer, 
which  will  be  dealt  with  later;  but  it  serves  to  show  how  an  effort  was 
made  to  render  the  book  palatable  to  the  Catholics. 


ELIZABETH'S  FIRST  PARLIAMENT         89 

D'Ewes  also  states  that  its  first  reading  took  place  on  26th 
April,  followed  by  the  second  on  the  27th,  and  it  may  be 
presumed  that  the  third  reading  was  passed  on  the  29th, 
though  this  is  not  mentioned.  It  was  in  opposition  to  the 
second  reading,  no  doubt,  that  the  Bishop  of  Chester  made 
a  vigorous  speech,  and  was  supported  by  the  Abbot  of 
Westminster  in  an  equally  plain-spoken  denunciation  of 
it.1  Feria,  writing  on  29th  April  to  King  Philip,  further 
records  that  "  the  Bishop  of  Ely  to-day  spoke  in  Parliament 
very  well  and  very  Cathohcly,  saying  he  would  sooner  die 
than  consent  to  any  change  of  religion.2  Thirlby,  the 
bishop  referred  to,  had  been  absent  on  embassy  till  the 
latter  part  of  April.  Immediately  on  his  return,  however, 
he  had  taken  his  stand  alongside  his  episcopal  brethren, 
and  in  person  ratified  what  hitherto  had  been  voted  for 
him  by  his  proxy.  But  no  matter  how  strenuous  might  be 
the  efforts  of  the  bishops,  they  were  of  little  or  no  avail 
against  the  element  frankly  favouring  reform,  and  the 
larger  section  of  the  peers  who  had  not  the  courage  of 
their  inmost  convictions  and  were  apparently  afraid  of  in- 
curring the  royal  displeasure.  The  attendance  on  29th  April 
and  the  voting  strength  it  represented  are  not  known  to 
us;  we  do  know,  however,  that  those  who  voted  "  not  con- 
tent "  were  the  Archbishop  of  York,  the  Bishops  of  London, 
Ely,  Worcester,  Llandaff,  Coventry  and  Lichfield,  Exeter, 

1  Parker's  Synodalia,  C.C.C.C. ;  Cotton  MSS.,  Vesp.  D.  18,  and 
many  printed  sources :  Strype,  Collier,  Dodd,  etc. 

2  Chron.  Belg.,  No.  cccxlii,  i,  p.  514.  Jewel,  writing  to  Peter 
Martyr,  said :  "  The  cause  of  the  Pope  is  now  agitated,  and  with  much 
vehemence  on  both  sides.  For  the  bishops  are  labouring  that  they 
may  not  seem  to  have  been  in  error,  and  this  delays  and  hinders  the 
progress  of  religion ;  but  it  is  indeed  no  easy  matter  to  accelerate  its 
course,  as  the  poet  says,  with  such  slow-paced  horses.  Feckenham, 
the  Abbot  of  Westminster,  in  order,  I  suppose,  to  exalt  the  authority  of 
his  own  profession,  in  a  speech  that  he  made  in  the  House  of  Lords, 
placed  the  Nazarites,  the  prophets,  nay,  even  Christ  Himself  and  His 
Apostles  in  the  monastic  orders !  No  one  more  keenly  opposes  our 
cause  than  the  Bishop  of  Ely  [Thirlby],  who  still  retains  his  seat  in 
Parliament,  and  his  disposition  along  with  it"  (1  Zur.,  p.  20,  No.  7, 
28th  April   1559). 


90         ELIZABETH'S  FIRST  PARLIAMENT 

Chester,  Carlisle,  the  Marquess  of  Winchester,  the  Earl  of 
Shrewsbury,  Viscount  Montague,  and  Lords  Morley,  Shef- 
field, Dudley,  Wharton,  Rich,  and  North — eighteen  peers 
in  all;  but  with  the  proxies  held  by  some,  counting  about 
twenty-five  votes.  Other  lay  peers,  however,  must  have 
absented  themselves  on  one  pretext  or  another  on  the 
crucial  day,  for  Feria,  writing  to  Philip  two  days  after  the 
closing  of  the  session,  informed  him  that  "the  saying  of 
:  the  Office  in  English  and  the  giving  up  of  the  Mass  passed 
by  three  votes  only  in  the  Upper  Chamber,  and  with  much 
opposition  from  the  bishops  and  certain  peers."1 

1  Chron.  Belg.,  No.  cccxlvi,  i,  p.  519,  10th  May,  1559.  The  follow- 
ing passage  from  Mr.  F.  \V.  Maitland's  chapter  on  the  Elizabethan 
settlement  of  religion,  in  the  Cambridge  Modern  History,  ii,  p.  569, 
will  serve  to  show  that  the  views  quoted  above  find  acceptance  by 
responsible  historians  to-day.  "  In  the  last  days  of  an  unusually  long 
session,"  he  writes,  "a  Bill  for  the  Uniformity  of  Religion  went  rapidly 
through  both  Houses  (i8th-28th  April).  The  services  prescribed  in  a 
certain  Book  of  Common  Prayer,  and  none  other,  were  to  be  lawful. 
The  embryonic  history  of  this  measure  is  obscure.  An  informal  com- 
mittee of  Protestant  divines  seems  to  have  been  appointed  by  the 
Queen  to  prepare  a  book.  .  .  .  Our  guess  may  be  that,  when  men 
were  weary  of  the  prolonged  debate  over  the  Supremacy,  and  its  con- 
tinuance was  becoming  a  national  danger  (for  violent  speeches  had 
been  made),  the  Queen's  advisers  took  the  short  course  of  proposing 
the  Book  of  1552  with  very  few  changes.  .  .  .  The  changes  sanctioned 
by  Parliament  were  few.  An  offensive  phrase  about  the  Bishop  of 
Rome's  'detestable  enormities'  was  expunged,  apparently  by  the 
House  of  Lords.  An  addition  from  older  sources  was  made  to  the 
words  that  accompany  the  delivery  of  the  bread  and  wine  to  the  com- 
municant, whereby  a  charge  of  the  purest  Zwinglianism  might  be 
obviated  ...  a  certain  'black  rubric'  which  had  never  formed  part 
of  the  statutory  book  fell  away.  .  .  .  But  to  return  to  Elizabeth's 
Parliament,  we  have  it  on  fairly  good  authority  that  nine  Temporal 
Lords,  including  the  Treasurer  (the  Marquess  of  Winchester)  and  nine 
prelates  (two  bishops  were  in  gaol)  voted  against  the  Bill,  and  that 
it  was  only  carried  by  three  votes.  Unfortunately,  at  an  exciting 
moment,  there  is  a  gap,  perhaps  a  significant  gap,  in  the  official 
record,  and  we  cease  to  know  what  lords  were  present  in  the  House. 
But  about  thirty  Temporal  Peers  had  lately  been  in  attendance,  and 
so  we  may  infer  that  some  of  them  were  inclined  neither  to  alter  the 
religion  of  England  nor  yet  to  oppose  the  Queen." 


ELIZABETH'S  FIRST  PARLIAMENT         91 

Bishop  Scot  and  Abbot  Feckenham,  in  their  speeches 
against  the  Bill  for  Uniformity,  had  challenged  their 
hearers  to  produce  a  single  instance  where  the  bishops 
were  not  consulted  and  listened  to  in  a  controversy  of  this 
kind.  The  Bill  became  law  without  one  single  episcopal 
vote  in  its  favour.  This  fact  has  been  animadverted  on  as 
rendering  the  whole  passage  of  the  Act  illegal  and  invalid, 
and  thus  invalidating  subsequent  legislation  based  upon  it. 
In  a  paper  drawn  up  in  James  I's  reign,  or  possibly  in  that 
of  Charles  I,  it  is  said:  "The  aforesaid  Act  of  1  Eliz. 
seemeth  not  of  force,  having  been  enacted  without  any 
consent  of  the  Lords  Spiritual,  as  appeareth  in  the  con- 
text, but  only  of  the  Lords  Temporal  and  Commons;  and 
by  necessary  consequence,  all  penal  laws  made  with  refer- 
ence to  this  seem  also  ipso  jure,  not  to  have  force  of  parlia- 
mentary laws,  supposing  that  the  presence  of  the  Lords 
Spiritual  be  necessarily  required  to  a  Parliament,  as  the 
lawyers  seem  to  judge." '  It  is  vain,  however,  to  specu- 
late; the  only  useful  method  is  to  accept  the  fait  accompli 
as  the  final  arbiter.  Had  peers  voted  according  to  con- 
science, had  so  many  Sees  not  then  been  vacant,  had  all 
the  bishops  been  free  (whereas  some  were  ill,  some  in 
prison),  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  the  "change  of  re- 
ligion "  would  have  been  averted,  for  a  time  at  least,  and 
the  new  Prayer  Book  would  have  been  rejected.    As  it 

1  State  Papers,  collected  by  Edward,  Earl  of  Clarendon,  pp.  91-92. 
A  recent  writer  admits  that  this  aspect  must  be  taken  into  account. 
Referring  to  the  deprivation  of  the  bishops  in  1559,  he  says  the  lawyers 
questioned  the  legality  of  the  proceedings  against  them  "  on  the  ground 
that  they  were  made  the  victims  of  laws  which  concerned  the  ecclesi- 
astical polity,  but  which  they,  the  ecclesiastical  authorities,  had  never 
accepted  on  behalf  of  the  Church.  The  lawyers'  scruple  was  per- 
fectly justified — the  proceedings  were  irregular,"  he  admits,  "the 
ecclesiastical  changes  of  both  the  Supremacy  Act  and  the  Uniformity 
Act  ought,  properly  speaking,  to  have  received  that  '  assent  of  the 
clergy  in  their  Convocation  '  which  the  Supremacy  Act  itself  recognised 
to  be  the  proper  authorisation,  reinforced,  if  need  be,  by  a  ratification 
of  Parliament,  in  questions  of  ecclesiastical  legislation  "  (Frere,  A  Hist. 
0/  the  Engl.  Church  in  the  reigns  of  Eliz.  and  fas.  I,  p.  39). 


92         ELIZABETH'S  FIRST  PARLIAMENT 

was,  however,  the  Elizabethan  settlement  of  religion  is 
based  upon  the  infallibility  of  the  odd  three 1  to  whom 
Feria  referred.  The  day  after  this  momentous  conclu- 
sion was  reached,  Edwin  Sandys,  in  a  letter  to  Matthew 
Parker,  made  some  interesting  remarks,  showing  how  the 
returned  exiles  now  looked  expectantly  for  the  dawn  of 
better  days  for  themselves.  "  They  never  ask  us  in  what 
state  we  stand,  neither  consider  that  we  want;  and  yet  in 
the  time  of  our  exile  we  were  not  so  bare  as  we  are  now 
brought.  But  I  trust  we  shall  not  linger  here  long,  for  the 
Parliament  draweth  towards  an  end.  The  last  Book  of 
Service  is  gone  through  with  a  proviso  to  retain  the  orna- 
ments which  were  used  in  the  first  and  second  year  of  King 
Edward,  until  it  please  the  Queen  to  take  other  order  for 
them.  Our  gloss  upon  this  text  is,  that  we  shall  not  be 
forced  to  use  them,  but  that  others  in  the  mean  time  shall  not 
convey  them  away,  but  that  they  may  remain  for  the  Queen. 

"  After  this  Book  was  passed,  Boxall  and  others  quarrelled 
with  it,  that  according  to  the  order  of  Scripture  we  had  not 
gratiarum  actio,  '  for,'  saith  he,  '  Dominus  accepit  pattern, 
gratias  agit,  but  in  the  time  of  consecration  we  give  no 
thanks.'  This  he  put  into  the  Treasurer's  head,  and  into 
the  Countie  de  Feror's  [Feria's]  head,  and  he  laboured  to 
alienate  the  Queen's  Majesty  from  confirming  of  the  Act, 
but  I  trust  they  cannot  prevail.  Mr.  Secretary  [Cecil]  is 
earnest  with  the  Book,  and  we  have  ministered  reasons  to 
maintain  that  part."2 

The  Act  of  Uniformity,  technically  known  as  "  i  Eliz. 
c.  2,"  may  be  thus  summarised.  Mary's  Act  (i  Mary, 
Sess.  2,  c.  2),  repealing  Edward  VI's  ecclesiastical  legisla- 
tion, was  repealed,  and  Edward's  Book  of  Common  Prayer 
(with  the  alterations  and  additions  already  indicated)  was 
re-established.  Penalties  of  deprivation  and  imprisonment 
for  life,  as  also  heavy  fines,  were  to  be  incurred  by  those 
presuming  to  use  any  other  form  of  divine  service  or  adminis- 

1  Cf.  Gasquet,  A  Short  Hist,  of  the  Cath.  Church  in  Engl.,  p.  77. 

2  Parker  Corresp.,  No.  49,  p.  65,  30th  April,  1559,  where  the  writer's 
Christian  name  is  given  as  Edmund :  a  palpable  error. 


ELIZABETH'S  FIRST  PARLIAMENT         93 

tration  of  the  Sacraments,  or  for  speaking  against  the  Book 
of  Common  Prayer,  from  and  after  the  Feast  of  the  Nativity 
of  St.  John  the  Baptist  next  ensuing  (24th  June,  1559) 
after  the  passing  of  the  Act.  The  archbishops  and  bishops 
were  empowered  to  employ  Church  censures  in  enforcing 
the  terms  of  the  Act;  Justices  of  the  Peace  were  enjoined 
to  hear  and  to  deal  with  the  cases  arising  out  of  its  enforce- 
ment. The  ornaments  of  the  Church  and  the  ministers 
were  to  continue  till  further  notice  as  they  had  been 
appointed  by  authority  of  Parliament  in  the  second  year 
of  King  Edward  VI,  the  Queen  reserving  to  herself  the 
right,  if  need  should  arise,  of  ordaining  further  rites  and 
ceremonies.  A  final  clause  enacted  that  all  ordinances,  etc., 
establishing,  etc.,  other  services,  were  to  be  utterly  void 
and  of  none  effect.  It  is  this  clause  which  renders  the 
Established  Church  hide-bound  and  unable  to  develop 
according  to  the  wishes  of  a  section  of  its  more  ardent  or 
advanced  members.  But  the  Establishment  was  created  by 
the  law,  is  maintained  by  the  law,  and  must  perforce  abide 
by  the  law,  so  long  at  least  as  it  continues  to  be,  as  its  legal 
title  proclaims,  the  "  Church  of  England  as  by  Law  Estab- 
lished." Legislation  might  sanction  changes;  as,  indeed,  it 
did  a  few  years  later:  not  in  altering  the  status  or  the 
doctrine  of  the  Church,  but  only  in  increasing  the  severity 
of  the  penalties  for  non-conformity  with  the  standard  fixed 
by  the  Act  of  Uniformity  of  1559.  It  may  be  stated 
broadly  that  what  Parliament  made  the  Church  of  England 
in  1559,  that  it  has  been  ever  since,  that  it  is  now,  and  that 
it  must  and  will  continue  to  be  till  Parliament  shall  be 
pleased  to  sanction'  any  alteration.  Such  an  eventuality 
does  not  seem  to  be  within  the  range  of  probability,  more 
especially  as  Parliament  is  now  composed  of  many  hetero- 
geneous, not  to  say  conflicting,  elements.  The  House  of 
Commons  embraces  within  its  ranks  members  of  the  Estab- 
lished Church,  sectarians  of  every  shade  of  opinion,  Jews, 
Agnostics,  Freethinkers,  and  a  fair  proportion  of  adherents 
of  that  Church  against  which  the  religious  enactments  of 
1 559  were  mainly,  if  not  wholly,  directed. 


94         ELIZABETH'S  FIRST  PARLIAMENT 

The  first  Parliament  of  Queen  Elizabeth  had  now  done 
its  work,  and  was  dissolved  by  the  Queen  in  person  on 
8th  May,  on  which  date  she  gave  her  royal  assent  to  forty- 
two  Bills  which  had  been  before  the  two  Houses  during  the 
past  session.  Not  all  of  these  Acts  concerned  the  question 
of  religion ;  of  those  in  any  way  bearing  on  that  burning 
topic,  and  briefly  referred  to  in  this  chapter,  ten  found  a 
place  amongst  the  statutes  of  the  realm;  but  none  were 
of  such  vital  and  far-reaching  importance  as  the  Acts  of 
Supremacy  and  Uniformity.  They  are  the  foundation  stone 
and  the  keystone  of  the  establishment.  Their  application 
in  practice  and  their  incidence  during  the  next  few  years 
of  settlement  must  therefore  engage  the  attention  of  any 
student  of  Elizabethan  religious  policy  and  politics. 

Much  of  our  information  as  to  details  about  this  eventful 
Parliament  has  come  down  to  us,  strange  to  say,  from 
foreign  sources — from  keen,  observant  ambassadors.  Feria, 
to  whom  we  owe  so  much,  left  England  shortly  after  the 
close  of  the  session,  and  was  replaced  by  Alvaro  de  Quadra, 
Bishop  of  Aquila.  This  prelate  was  of  Bolognese  descent  on 
his  father's  side,  Spanish  on  that  of  his  mother.  He  became 
Bishop  of  Venosa  in  1542,  and  was  translated  to  the  See  of 
Aquila  in  1 55 1.  In  his  estimation,  ecclesiastical  dignities 
were  but  a  means  for  raising  him  in  the  favour  of  his 
Sovereign,  and  he  had  already  acquitted  himself  of  various 
diplomatic  missions,  when  he  was  appointed  ambassador  in 
London,  in  succession  to  Feria.  "  He  rejoiced  greatly  at  it," 
he  wrote  to  Granvelle,  Bishop  of  Arras,  above  all,  because 
by  this  means  he  could  quit  the  Church,  wherein,  from  a 
worldly  point  of  view,  it  was  impossible  to  attain  either 
honour  or  power,  and  he  had  felt  no  desire  to  embrace  the 
ecclesiastical  state,  to  which  he  had  taken,  only  in  the  hope 
of  a  seat  at  the  Council.1  Although,  on  another  occasion,  he 
proclaimed  himself  a  philosopher,2  this  did  not  prevent  him 
from  regarding  his  diplomatic  career  as  a  purgatory,  and 
from  registering  the  determination  to  abandon  it,  especially 

1  Cf.  Chron.  Belg.,  No.  ccccxxi,  ii,  p.  11,  2nd  September,  1559. 

2  Ibid.,  No.  ccccxxxix,  ii,  p.  49,  3rd  October,  1559. 


ELIZABETH'S  FIRST  PARLIAMENT         95 

if  he  could  attain  to  a  Cardinal's  Hat  or  the  Archbishopric 
of  Toledo.1 

Brantome,  who  had  seen  Quadra  in  England,  gives  him 
the  character  of  being  a  straightforward  prelate,  worthy  of 
the  post  he  filled;  but  he  thought  it  curious  that  a  Catholic 
bishop  should  be  at  the  Court  of  a  Protestant  Queen,  who 
appeared  to  make  much  of  him,  and  that  he  was  there  the 
representative  of  a  monarch  who,  Catholic  as  he  was,  sent 
a  Huguenot  ambassador  to  the  Pope.2 

Alvaro  de  Quadra  had  said  of  himself  that  he  was  not  so 
much  a  bishop  as  the  ambassador  of  the  King  of  Spain.3 
Greedy  of  luxury  and  ostentation,  though  without  the 
means  of  gratifying  his  tastes,4  too  given  to  pleasure,  for 
which  he  occasionally  expressed  his  remorse,  he  owed  the 
influence  he  undoubtedly  exercised  in  England  to  two 
characteristics  very  different  from  those  just  referred  to.  He 
never  hesitated  to  employ  extreme  boldness  and  firmness 
in  his  dealings  with  Elizabeth  and  Cecil,  and,  in  the  pur- 
suit of  his  intrigues,  he  showed  untiring  activity. 

Such  was  the  man  who  took  up  Feria's  work  at  a  critical 
and  interesting  moment.  He  wrote  his  first  despatch  to 
King  Philip  on  the  24th  May,  1559,  from  London,  inform- 
his  royal  master  that  his  predecessor  had  just  presented 
him  to  Queen  Elizabeth.5  Not  many  days  elapsed  before 
he  reported  that  the  Act  of  Supremacy  so  lately  passed 
was  being  put  into  execution  by  the  tendering  of  the  oath.0 
Shortly  after,  19th  June,  he  not  only  told  Philip  that  the 
said  Act  had  been  put  in  force  against  some  of  the  bishops, 
and  that  Bonner  and   the   Dean   of  St.   Paul's  had  been 

1  Chron.  Belg.,  No.  CCCCLXVin,  ii,  p.  88,  12th  November,  1559,  to 
Feria  ;  No.  dcxxiv,  p.  366,  30th  April,  1560,  Granvelle  to  Aquila; 
No.  dlxxv,  p.  250,  7th  March,  1560,  to  Feria;  No.  dccclx,  iii,  p.  12, 
30th  April,  1562,  to  Granvelle. 

2  QLnvres  de  Brantome,  ed.  Lalanne,  iii,  p.  96. 

3  Chron.  Belg.,  No.  dcclxiv,  ii,  p.  563,  4th  May,  1561,  to  Cecil. 

4  Ibid.,  No.  ccccxxv,  ii,  p.  21,  9th  September,  1559,  to  Feria;  No. 
CCCCXLii,  p.  56,  5th  October,  1559,  to  Granvelle. 

5  Ibid.,  No.  CCCLI,  i,  p.  524. 

6  Ibid.,  No.  cccliv,  i,  p.  532,  6th  June,  1559. 


g6         ELIZABETH'S  FIRST  PARLIAMENT 

deprived,  but  he  also  showed  that  the  Act  of  Uniformity 
was  coming  into  operation,  even  before  the  statutory  date 
(24th  June);  for  the  form  of  divine  service  had  been  changed 
at  the  Cathedral,  and  the  Blessed  Sacrament  had  been 
removed  therefrom  on  Sunday,  nth  June.1  This  letter  is 
of  particular  value,  as  it  shows  how  quickly  Quadra  was 
making  himself  conversant  with  our  laws,  and  it  corro- 
borates the  view  already  quoted  as  to  the  illegality  of  the 
Act  of  Uniformity,  for  he  points  out  that  difficulty  would 
be  experienced  in  legalising  Bonner's  deprivation,  because 
he  says  that  those  learned  in  such  questions  even  then  held 
that  the  bishops  could  not  be  deprived  for  disobeying  that 
statute,  since  they  had  all  along  opposed  it;  it  was  held 
that  it  could  not  have  the  force  of  law  according  to  the 
customs  of  the  country,  for  it  had  received  the  support  of 
no  portion  of  the  ecclesiastical  body,  either  in  Convocation 
or  in  the  House  of  Lords.  He  also  stated  that  a  certain 
hesitancy  in  proceeding  with  the  deprivations  was  ob- 
servable, and  ascribed  it  to  the  fact  that  the  Goverment 
realised  the  difficulties  in  which  they  would  involve  them- 
selves if  they  persevered  as  they  had  begun ;  and  yet,  so 
long  as  they  delayed,  there  was  no  chance  of  effecting  the 
religious  changes  to  which  they  had  made  up  their  minds. 
During  the  past  half  century,  it  has  been  the  object  of  a 
certain  school  of  historians  here  in  England  to  prove  that 
what  took  place  in  Elizabeth's  reign,  notably  as  a  result  of 
the  legislation  of  the  Parliament  of  1559,  was  not  a  change 
of  religion ;  but  as  England  refused  to  acknowledge  the 
Supremacy  of  the  Holy  See,  the  Church  of  Rome  broke 
away  from  that  of  England.  Hence,  the  present  "Church  of 
England,  as  by  Law  Established,"  is  by  unbroken  continuity 
one  and  the  same  with  that  which  existed  here  before  the 
great  schism  under  Henry  VIII.  The  despatches  of  these 
episcopal  and  ambassadorial  onlookers  which  have  here 
been  so  frequently  put  under  contribution  are  espe- 
cially valuable  in  this  connection,  for,  as  if  foreseeing  the 
interpretation  which  a  future  age  would  seek  to  put  on  the 
1  Chron.  Belg.,  No.  CCCLVI,  i,  p.  537. 


ELIZABETH'S  FIRST  PARLIAMENT         97 

events  of  which  they  were  eye-witnesses,  keen,  alert,  and 
well-informed,  they  explained  what  was  passing  under  their 
very  eyes  with  a  candour  and  frankness  that  carry  the 
stamp  of  truth  and  reliability,  for  they  were  writing  their 
secret  despatches  meant  primarily  for  the  eye  of  their 
royal  master.  To  him,  and  to  us,  they  make  it  clear  that 
the  rupture  was  sought  here,  not  in  Rome;  that  it  was  the 
work  of  Parliament;  and  the  measure  of  the  change  wrought 
was  to  be  gauged  by  the  resultant  difference  that  marked 
off  the  adherents  of  the  new  order  from  themselves.  It  is 
admitted  that  in  Mary's  reign  the  religious  status  of  Eng- 
land was  restored  to  what  it  had  been  before  Henry  VIII's 
rupture  with  Rome:  therefore,  to  what  it  had  been  at  any 
period  since,  say,  the  Norman  Conquest.  The  Bishop  of 
Aquila  died,  as  he  had  lived,  in  union  and  in  unison  with 
Rome,  and  he  was  also  one  in  Faith  with  the  episcopate  of 
England  as  he  found  it  on  his  arrival ;  hence  he  could  only 
deplore  the  rapid  overthrow  of  the  old  order.  With  such 
facts  before  the  impartial  enquirer,  there  is  but  one  answer 
to  be  given  to  the  query,  did  Rome  drift  away  from  England, 
or  did  England  drift  away  from  Rome? 

The  question  presented  itself  in  only  one  aspect  to  those 
who  were  the  actors  in  these  events,  and  they,  at  least,  knew 
what  they  were  about,  what  were  the  actual  facts.  It  is  suf- 
ficient to  refer  to  the  secret  meeting  at  Canon  Row,  without 
seeking  quotations  from  the  writings  of  the  period,  to  show 
that  the  purpose  of  the  adherents  of  Elizabeth  was  to  break 
away  from  Rome.  It  may  be  conceded  that  many  of  the  re- 
formers thought  that  in  following  the  line  they  had  marked 
out  for  themselves,  they  were  going  back  to  a  primitive 
usage  from  which  the  Church  of  Rome  had  gradually  re- 
ceded. That  is  not  the  point.  It  is  not  now  a  question  as 
to  the  corruptness  or  otherwise  of  the  Church  of  Rome,  but 
whether  the  Church  as  established  by  law  in  1559  is  essen- 
tially the  same  as  that  which  existed  before  the  breach  with 
Rome.  Whatever  views  may  be  put  forward  at  this  day,  it 
is  clear  that  those  who  helped  to  effect  the  change  meant 
to  create  something  entirely  different.  And  they  succeeded. 
H 


CHAPTER  III 

THE  WESTMINSTER  CONFERENCE,  MARCH— APRIL,  I  559 

THE  meeting  of  certain  reformers  at  Sir  Thomas 
Smythe's  house  in  Canon  Row  previous  to  the  open- 
ing of  Parliament,  and  the  measures  there  concerted  for 
effecting  a  change  in  religion,  were  indicative  of  the  aggres- 
siveness of  the  adherents  of  the  new  order.  The  correspond- 
ence of  this  period  reveals  the  high  hopes  entertained  by 
the  men  who  had  been  such  a  short  while  before  exiles  in 
Frankfort,  Geneva,  Strasburg,  and  elsewhere  on  the  Con- 
tinent. No  sooner  had  they  learnt  that  the  breath  was  out 
Queen  Mary's  body,  than  they  commenced  to  flock  back 
to  their  native  shores,  sure  of  countenance  and  preferment. 
In  October,  1558,  they  would  not  have  dared  to  show  their 
faces  in  England,  for  very  fear  of  their  necks ;  in  January 
1558-9,  they  were  already  discussing  the  division  amongst 
themselves  of  the  ecclesiastical  spoils.  Hence  the  measures 
introduced  in  Elizabeth's  first  Parliament  fed  their  hopes; 
and  a  jubilant  note  may  be  heard  in  the  letters  written  by 
the  advanced  guard  of  the  returned  exiles  to  their  yet 
laggard  brethren  in  Germany.  Thus  Thomas  Sampson, 
writing  to  Peter  Martyr  exactly  a  month  after  Elizabeth's 
accession,  says:  "In  case  this  Queen  should  invite  me  to 
any  ecclesiastical  office,  such,  I  mean,  as  the  government 
of  a  Church,  .  .  ." 1  Ardent  reformer  though  he  was,  he 
quite  looked  to  bask  in  the  sunshine  of  the  royal  favour, 
though  further  down  in  the  same  letter  he  disclaims  any 
such  ambition.  "  As  far  as  I  am  personally  concerned,  I 
am  not  writing  as  if  I  were  expecting  anything  of  the  kind 
1  1  Zur.,  p.  1,  No.  1,  17th  December,  1558. 
98 


Emery  Walker phoic 


{National  Portrait  Gallery 


SIR  NICHOLAS  BACON 

LORD  KEEPER 


THE  WESTMINSTER  CONFERENCE         99 

.  .  .  but  I  ask  your  advice  .  .  .  that  in  case  of  any  such 
event  taking  place,  I  may  be  the  better  prepared  how  to 
act."  Three  days  later,  Edwin  Sandys,  on  the  eve  of  setting 
out  on  his  journey  to  England,  wrote  to  Henry  Bullinger, 
asking  him  "  to  entreat  God  in  behalf  of  the  Church  of 
England,  and  of  us,  miserable  ministers  of  the  Word,  upon 
whom  a  heavy  and  difficult  burthen  is  imposed."  l  Jewel, 
writing  to  Peter  Martyr,  on  26th  January,  1558-9,  tells 
him  that  he  has  heard  that  Sandys,  Home,  and  others  had 
reached  England,  and  "  that  their  return  was  very  accept- 
able to  the  Queen,  and  that  she  has  openly  declared  her 
satisfaction." '  Then  follows  a  letter  from  the  same  writer 
to  the  same  correspondent,  dated  20th  March,  1558-9,3  from 
which  it  will  be  necessary  to  make  a  lengthy  extract,  both 
because  of  its  intrinsic  interest,  and  as  introducing  the 
particular  event  here  to  be  discussed.  "  I  found  ...  on  my 
return  home,"  he  writes,  "...  the  Roman  Pontiff  was  not 
yet  cast  out;  no  part  of  religion  was  yet  restored;  the 
country  was  still  everywhere  desecrated  with  the  Mass ;  the 
pomp  and  insolence  of  the  bishops  was  unabated.  All  these 
things,  however,  are  at  length  beginning  to  shake  and  al- 
most to  fall. 

"  The  bishops  are  a  great  hindrance  to  us ;  for  being,  as 
you  know,  among  the  nobility  and  leading  men  in  the 
Upper  House,  and  having  none  there  on  our  side  to  expose 
their  artifices  and  confute  their  falsehoods,  they  reign  as 
sole  monarchs  in  the  midst  of  ignorant  and  weak  men,  and 
easily  overreach  our  little  party,  either  by  their  numbers, 
or  their  reputation  for  learning.  The  Queen,  meanwhile, 
though  she  openly  favours  our  cause,  yet  is  wonderfully 
afraid  of  allowing  any  innovations;  this  is  owing  partly  to 
her  own  friends,  by  whose  advice  everything  is  carried  on, 
and  partly  to  the  influence  of  Count  Feria,  a  Spaniard,  and 
Philip's  ambassador.  She  is,  however,  prudently  and  firmly 
and  piously  following  up  her  purpose,  though  somewhat 
more  slowly  than  we  could  wish.    And  though  the  begin- 

1  I  Zur.,  p.  6,  No.  2,  20th  December,  1558. 

-  Ibid.,  p.  6,  No.  3.  3  Ibid.,  1,  p.  10,  No.  4. 


ioo       THE  WESTMINSTER  CONFERENCE 

nings  have  hitherto  seemed  somewhat  unfavourable,  there 
is  nevertheless  reason  to  hope  that  all  will  be  well  at  last. 
In  the  meantime,  that  our  bishops  may  have  no  ground  of 
complaint  that  they  are  put  down  only  by  power  and 
authority  of  law,  a  disputation  is  determined  upon,  wherein 
nine  on  our  side,  namely,  Scory,  Cox,  Whitehead,  Sandys, 
Grindal,  Home,  Aylmer,  a  Cambridge  man  of  the  name  of 
Ghest,  and  myself,  are  to  confer  upon  these  matters  before 
the  Council  with  five  bishops,  the  Abbot  of  Westminster, 
Cole,  Chedsey,  and  Harpsfield.  Our  first  proposition  is, 
that  it  is  contrary  to  the  Word  of  God,  and  the  practice  of 
the  primitive  Church,  to  use  in  the  public  prayers  and 
administration  of  the  Sacraments  any  other  language  than 
what  is  understood  by  the  people.  The  second  is,  that 
every  provincial  Church,  even  without  the  bidding  of  a 
General  Council,  has  power  either  to  establish,  or  change, 
or  abrogate  ceremonies  and  ecclesiastical  rites,  wherever  it 
may  seem  to  make  for  edification.  The  third  is,  that  the 
propitiatory  Sacrifice,  which  the  Papists  pretend  to  be  in 
the  Mass,  cannot  be  proved  by  the  Holy  Scriptures. 

"  The  first  discussion  is  to  take  place  on  the  3 1  st  of  March. 
The  bishops  in  the  meantime  have  been  long  mightily  ex- 
ulting, as  though  the  victory  were  already  achieved." 

This  letter  was  followed  by  another  on  6th  April,  in 
which  Jewel  gave  Peter  Martyr  his  account  of  what  took 
place  when  the  champions  of  the  Old  and  of  the  New 
Learning  met.1  From  this  and  other  sources  we  are  able 
to  reconstitute  the  proceedings. 

Lingard 2  says  that  the  opposition  to  religious  change 
was  so  manifest,  both  in  Convocation  and  in  the  House  of 
Lords,  that  "  to  dissolve  or  neutralise  this  opposition  an 
ingenious  expedient  was  devised."  Representatives  of  each 
party  "  received  the  royal  command  to  dispute  in  public  on 
certain  controverted  points."  Froude  is  equally  clear  in  his 
understanding  of  the  underlying  motives.  "  The  Mass  still 
continued;    the    Catholic    ritual    had    possession    of    the 

'  Cf.  I  Zur.,  p.  13,  No.  5,  6th  April,  1559. 
2  Hist.  Engl.,  ed.  1825,  vol.  vi,  pp.  356-7. 


THE  WESTMINSTER  CONFERENCE        101 

Churches,  and  the  Litany  with  parts  of  the  Communion 
service  alone  as  yet  were  read  in  English.  The  clergy,  with 
remarkable  unanimity,  had  pronounced  against  all  change ; 
and  decency  required  that  for  a  religious  reformation  there 
should  be  some  semblance  or  shadow  of  spiritual  sanction. 
.  .  .  On  the  31st  [March]  therefore,  there  was  held  in  West- 
minster Abbey  a  theological  Tournament." '  After  pointing 
out  that  the  Catholic  party  was  designedly  placed  at  the 
disadvantage  of  always  having  to  open  the  debates,  he 
remarks :  "  They  did  not  and  would  not  understand  that 
they  were  but  actors  in  a  play,  of  which  the  finale  was  al- 
ready arranged,  that  they  were  spoiling  its  symmetry  by 
altering  the  plans." 2  That  this  is  the  accepted  explanation 
of  the  inception  of  this  famous  meeting  is  also  clear  from 
Richard  Cox's  narrative  of  the  event,  written  for  the  in- 
formation of  his  friend  and  fellow-reformer,  Wolfgang 
Weidner.  "  The  bishops,  the  Scribes  and  Pharisees  opposed 
it3  in  .  .  .  Parliament;  and  because  they  had  in  that  place 
but  few  who  durst  even  open  their  mouths  against  them, 
they  always  appeared  to  gain  the  victory.  Meanwhile,  we 
...  are  thundering  forth  in  our  pulpits,  and  especially 
before  our  Queen,  Elizabeth,  that  the  Roman  Pontiff  is 
truly  Antichrist,  and  that  traditions  are  for  the  most  part 
mere  blasphemies.  At  length  many  of  the  nobility,  and 
vast  numbers  of  the  people,  begin  by  degrees  to  return  to 
their  senses ;  but  of  the  clergy  none  at  all.  For  the  whole 
body  remain  unmoved.  .  .  .  The  matter  at  last  came  to 
this,  that  eight  [Catholics]  were  to  dispute  concerning  some 
heads  of  religion  with  eight  [reformers]." 4 

Dr.  Cardwell  says,6  that  Elizabeth,  or  her  Council,  warned 

1  Hist,  of  Engl.,  vol.  vii,  pp.  72-3.  2  Ibid.,  p.  75. 

3  I.e.,  "  the  sincere  religion  of  Christ." 

4  I  Zur.,  p.  27,  No.  11,  20th  May,  1559.  It  is  hardly  worth  while 
reconciling  the  discrepancy  between  those  who  give  eight  and  those 
who  give  nine  champions  to  each  side.  Sandys  is  usually  omitted  from 
the  list  of  the  reformers,  and  Abbot  Feckenham  from  the  Catholic 
side.  It  is,  however,  of  little  consequence  whether  there  were  "eight, 
nine,  or  ten,"  according  to  the  royal  Injunctions. 

5  History  of  Conferences,  p.  24. 


102       THE  WESTMINSTER  CONFERENCE 

by  the  strong  tokens  of  hostility  exhibited  in  Convocation 
and  Parliament  to  the  projects  of  reform  which  were  before 
them,  and  by  "  the  great  influence  of  the  Romanists  in  the 
country  at  large,"  .  .  .  resolved  upon  withdrawing  the  Bill 
of  Uniformity  for  the  present,  and  adopting  some  method 
of  turning  the  stream  of  public  opinion  more  strongly  in 
favour  of  the  reformers.  She  decided  upon  a  conference 
between  the  most  eminent  divines  of  the  two  rival  parties 
.  .  .  being  convinced  that  whatever  in  other  respects  might 
be  the  issue  of  it,  much  advantage  would  be  obtained  for 
the  direction  of  her  future  measures." 

The  conference  once  decided  upon,  the  next  thing  to  be 
done  was  to  settle  the  details  of  procedure.  This  was 
effected  in  consultation  with  Archbishop  Heath.  The  only 
widely  known  account  of  these  details  hitherto  accessible 
to  the  general  public  comes  to  us  from  the  Protestant  side 
alone,  which,  in  face  of  the  manipulation  both  of  documents 
and  evidence  practised  at  that  period,  engenders  suspicion 
of  its  entire  impartiality  and  accuracy,  telling,  as  it  does, 
strongly  against  the  Catholics  and  as  strongly  for  the 
Protestants.1  An  independent  Catholic  account,  now  avail- 
able,2 controls  or  checks  the  other,  corroborating  it,  or 
indicating  points  that  needed  fuller  explanation  and  elucida- 
tion. According  to  the  traditional  version,  certain  members 
of  the  Privy  Council  approached  the  Archbishop  of  York 
(Nicholas  Heath),  with  the  request  that  he  would  arrange 
with  the  other  bishops  to  appoint  from  eight  to  ten  theo- 
logians  to   confer   in    public    disputation    with    as    many 

1  Cf.  The  Declaration  of  the  proceeding  of  a  Conference  begun  at 
Westtninster  the  last  day  of  March,  1559,  concerning  certain  articles 
of  religion,  and  the  breaking  up  of  the  said  Conference,  by  default  and 
contempt  of  certain  Bishops,  parties  of  the  said  Conference.  From  the 
original  among  Abp.  Parker's  papers  in  Library  of  C.C.C.C.,  vol.  121, 
entitled  Synodalia.  Cf.  also  Burnet,  Hist.  Reform.,  ii,  p.  483 ;  Collier, 
Eccl.  Hist.,  vi,  pp.  197,  sqq.  A  longer  and  more  minute  account  of 
this  Conference  is  given  by  Foxe,  Acts  and  Monuments,  viii,  pp.  679, 
sqq.,  ed.  1839. 

2  Catholic  Record  Soc,  vol.  i.  Dr.  Nicholas  Sander's  Report  to 
Cardinal  Moroni,  pp.  3,  sqq. ;  26,  sqq. 


THE  WESTMINSTER  CONFERENCE        103 

reformers.  The  bishops  expressed  their  willingness  to 
accept  the  challenge,  and,  in  Archbishop  Heath's  words, 
"  to  render  an  account  of  their  faith  in  those  matters  .  .  . 
although  they  thought  the  same  so  determined,  as  there 
was  no  cause  to  dispute  upon  them."  ' 

The  Queen,  or  the  promoters  in  her  name,  expressed  the 
wish  that  the  conference  should  be  conducted  by  written 
papers  "  for  avoiding  of  much  altercation  in  words." 2  Then, 
under  cloak  of  deference  to  the  dignity  of  the  episcopate, 
an  insidious  trap  was  laid,  the  effect  of  which  could  not 
have  been  perceived  at  the  time,  or  surely  the  bishops 
would  have  demurred  to  it  at  once.  "  The  said  bishops 
should,  because  they  were  in  authority  of  degree  superiors," 
so  ran  the  official  account,  "  first  declare  their  minds  and 
opinions  to  the  matter,  with  their  reasons  in  writing.  And 
the  other  number  ...  if  they  had  anything  to  say  to  the 
contrary,  should  the  same  day  declare  their  opinions  in 
like  manner.  And  so  each  of  them  should  deliver  their 
writings  to  the  other  to  be  considered  what  were  to  be 
improved  therein,  and  the  same  to  declare  again  in  writing 
at  some  other  convenient  day;  and  the  like  order  to  be 
kept  in  all  the  rest  of  the  matters." 3  It  will  be  noticed 
that,  by  this  arrangement,  the  last  word  was  secured  in 
each  debate  to  the  reformers,  an  obvious  and  one-sided 
advantage;  and  as  the  papers  the  latter  were  to  bring 
prepared  were  clearly  not  answers  to  those  of  the  Catholics, 
but  would  contain  their  own  independent  exposition  of 
the  subjects  under  discussion,  the  effect  produced  by  them 
on  the  bystanders  was  calculated  to  sink  deepest  and  to 
leave  the  most  lasting  impression  on  their  minds.  It  is 
matter  for  surprise  that  this  result  was  not  foreseen  by  the 
bishops.  The  official  narrative  merely  says  that  "  all  this 
was  fully  agreed  upon  with  the  Archbishop  of  York,  and 
also  signified  to  both  parties."4  In  the  face  of  what  sub- 
sequently happened,  it  may  reasonably  be  doubted  whether 
this  is  an  accurate  record  of  what  really  took  place.    Indeed, 

1  P.R.O.  Dom.  Eliz.,  in,  No.  54.  2  Ibid. 

3  Ibid.  4  Ibid. 


104       THE  WESTMINSTER  CONFERENCE 

Sander  gives  a  different  complexion  to  the  incident.  He 
says,  writing  in  the  middle  of  1561,  only  slightly  more 
than  two  years  after,  be  it  remembered :  "  And  because  in 
that  controversy  they  [the  reformers]  thought  they  would 
have  it  all  their  own  way,  they  moved  some  councillors 
belonging  to  their  faction  to  institute  public  disputations, 
in  which  Lutherans  should  take  the  judges'  seats,  and 
without  ado  pass  sentence  in  favour  of  the  heretics.  To  be 
brief,  the  bishops  were  warned  to  prepare  themselves  for 
disputations  in  six  days.  But  they,  simple  men,  made 
answer  that  they  were  secure  against  all  assailants.  .  .  . 
They  would  therefore  not  institute  a  controversy,  as 
plaintiffs,  as  if  uncertain  of  their  cause;  but,  on  the  con- 
trary, being  in  possession,  would  leave  it  to  their  opponents 
to  bring  proof  before  a  lawful  judge.  .  .  .  And  although 
the  judge  was  not  then  known,  yet  confident  in  the  good- 
ness of  their  cause,  they  left  themselves  in  the  hands  of  the 
Council." * 

Neither  account  records  any  drawing  up  of  terms  in 
writing  signed  by  the  opposing  parties.  Possibly  all  was 
arranged  verbally  at  a  personal  interview  with  Archbishop 
Heath.  In  any  case  the  preliminary  negotiations  occupied 
some  days,  as  hinted  at  by  Sander.  In  the  first  place,  the 
three  subjects  for  debate  were  announced.  Then,  "  the 
next  day,  the  Catholics  met  to  choose,  according  to  the 
custom  of  the  Schools,  the  person  to  defend  the  Catholic 
cause,  and  they  elected  Doctor  Cole,  Dean  of  St.  Paul's  in 
London.  On  the  third  day  the  question  began  to  be 
considered  in  what  language  the  discussion  should  be  held. 
For,  as  the  Lutherans  wished  it  to  be  in  the  vulgar  tongue, 
the  Catholics  applied  to  the  Queen  that  it  might  be  in 
Latin,  and  when  they  seemed  to  have  gained  that  point, 
they  were  on  the  fourth  day  given  to  understand  that  all 
would  be  carried  on  in  the  vulgar  tongue.  Then  the 
Catholics  began  to  perceive  that  nothing  was  intended 
except  that  they  were  to  be  overcome  by  a  constant  change 
of  proceeding  while  yet  unprepared.  Lastly,  on  the  day 
1  "  In  potestate  senatus."    Cath.  Rec.  Soc,  i,  pp.  26,  27. 


THE  WESTMINSTER  CONFERENCE        105 

appointed  for  the  disputation,  the  Catholics  were  asked 
whether  their  arguments  would  be  written  down."  '  A  clear 
misunderstanding  was  here  and  hereby  created,  whether 
intentionally  or  not  it  may  be  impossible,  perhaps,  to  de- 
termine; but  suspicion  is  aroused  against  the  good  faith 
of  the  reformers,  in  the  light  of  the  subsequent  proceedings. 
The  Catholics  replied  that  "  they  much  wished  that  what 
passed  in  the  discussion  should,  in  order  to  avoid  mis- 
representation, be  reduced  to  writing,  believing  that  this 
would  be  done  by  notaries  there  present," 2  which  course 
would  certainly  seem  to  be  the  more  usual  and  satisfactory. 

Under  these  conditions,  Catholics  and  Reformers  were 
ready  to  enter  the  lists  of  debate,  before  a  specially  selected 
audience,  which  consisted  largely  of  the  nobility  and  of 
members  of  Parliament,  the  sittings  of  both  Houses  having 
been  specially  suspended  to  enable  their  members  to  attend 
the  Conference,  which  was  to  be  held  in  Westminster 
Abbey.  The  official  report  states  that  "both  for  good 
order,  and  for  the  honour  of  the  Conference,  by  the  Queen's 
Majesty's  commandment,  the  Lords  and  others  of  the 
Privy  Council  were  present,  and  a  great  part  of  the  nobility 
also."  The  Lord  Keeper  of  the  Great  Seal,  Sir  Nicholas 
Bacon,  acted  as  President  or  Chairman,  though  Collier 
observes  "  not  that  he  had  any  commission  from  the  Queen 
to  determine  between  the  parties,  or  overrule  any  point  in 
the  controversy."3  This  is  an  important  admission;  for, 
such  being  the  case,  whence  did  he  assume  authority  to 
commit  two  of  the  bishops  to  the  Tower  for  alleged  con- 
tempt of  his  ruling?  According  to  Sander,  "  some  of  the 
Council  sat  by  his  side,  among  whom  was  the  Archbishop 
of  York." 4 

The  Conference  was  opened  on  31st  March,  1559,  the 
Catholics  being  on  one  side  of  the  Abbey  Choir,  the 
Reformers  opposite,  and  the  President,  with  the  others, 
being  seated  at  a  cross  table.  When,  as  by  agreement,  the 
bishops  were  called  upon  to  open  the  debate,  and  Dr.  Cole 

1  Cath.  Rec.  Soc,  i,  27.  3  Ibid. 

3  Eccl.  Hist.,  vi,  198.  *  Cath.  Rec.  Soc,  i,  27. 


106       THE  WESTMINSTER  CONFERENCE 

commenced  his  speech,  he  was  stopped,  and  the  Catholics 
were  required  to  put  in  their  written  defence  of  the  first 
proposition.  They  replied  that  they  had  none:  that  they 
had  not  so  understood  what  was  required;  but  that  they 
were  prepared  to  meet  their  adversaries  in  verbal  debate, 
and  so  to  argue  the  first  point.  As  Archbishop  Heath  is 
credited  both  by  Foxe  and  Strype  with  the  suggestion  that 
the  Conference  should  be  by  way  of  written  papers,  the 
unpreparedness  of  the  Catholics  would  be  simply  inex- 
plicable and  inexcusable  under  any  other  supposition  than 
the  one  already  suggested.  Much  has  been  made  of  the 
fact  that  they  could  not  have  been  so  unprepared  as  they 
alleged,  since  Dr.  Cole,  who  was  "the  utterer  of  their  minds, 
who,  partly  by  speech  alone,  and  partly  by  reading  of 
authorities  written,  and  at  certain  times  being  informed  of 
his  colleagues  what  to  say,  made  a  declaration  of  their 
meanings  and  their  reasons." l  This  fact  is  appealed  to  as 
a  proof  that  the  Catholic  party  was  fully  prepared,  and  as 
an  argument  against  the  statement  that  Dr.  Cole's  speech 
was  extempore.  But  such  a  subterfuge  should  surely  be 
dismissed  as  unworthy  of  serious  consideration,  for  it  is 
merely  playing  with  the  usually  accepted  employment  of 
the  word  extempore.  Dr.  Cole's  speech  was  extempore,  inas- 
much as  it  was  not  a  written  oration  fully  completed  in  all 
its  parts  beforehand,  nor  was  it  of  the  like  nature  learnt  by 
rote.  Extempore  also  means  the  delivery  of  a  speech,  the 
matter  of  which  had  been  prepared  beforehand,  but  the 
form  being  left  to  the  ready  eloquence  of  the  speaker  at 
the  moment  of  delivery.  This  does  not  preclude,  but  pre- 
supposes a  careful  previous  study  of  the  subject,  with 
authorities  copied  out  ready  for  reference,  to  be  read  ver- 
batim when  they  should  be  wanted.  Such  a  method  also 
admits  of  the  speaker's  memory  being  aided  by  colleagues 
with  suggestions  and  notes, — additions  to  the  matter  he 
had  himself  collected. 

The  Bishop  of  Winchester  (White)  explained  the  reason 
of  their  not  having  a  paper  prepared ;  after  some  arguing 
1  P.R.O.  Dom.  Eliz.,  ill,  No.  54. 


THE  WESTMINSTER  CONFERENCE        107 

they  were  allowed,  as  already  stated,  to  make  a  verbal 
defence  of  the  Catholic  standpoint  in  support  of  the  use  of 
Latin  in  the  services  of  the  Church.  If  we  were  to  accept, 
without  further  enquiry,  the  account  of  Dr.  Cole's  speech 
furnished  to  Peter  Martyr  by  Jewel1  as  anything  else  but  a 
jocose  though  spiteful  travesty  of  his  powers  of  oratory, 
it  would  be  difficult  to  recognise  therein  any  signs  of  the 
learning  for  which,  as  attested  by  Leland  and  Ascham,  he 
was  famous. * 

When  at  last  Dr.  Cole  opened  the  Conference,  he  ob- 
served, as  recorded  by  Sander,  "  that  he  had  come  not  so 
much  to  speak  as  to  refute  what  might  be  put  forward  on 
the  opposite  side."  Dr.  Sander  furnishes  the  heads  of  his 
speech,  which  thus  proves  to  be  a  well-ordered  and  power- 
ful argument,  very  unlike  Jewel's  version  of  it.  He  con- 
concluded  by  exclaiming:  "  Now  I  await  the  arguments  of 
our  adversaries,  to  which,  when  I  shall  reply,  it  will  be 
evident  that  what  I  have  said  is  true."  Sir  Nicholas  Bacon 
then  asked  if  the  Catholics  had  any  further  arguments  to 
adduce:  to  which  they  answered  that  they  had  nothing 
more  to  say  "before  the  disputation:  one  preface  was 
enough."  This  was  certainly  a  clever  manoeuvre  to  obtain 
the  wind-gauge,  but  it  was  not  allowed  to  avail  them.  The 
Reformers  were  then  called  upon  to  reply,  and  Dr.  Robert 
Home  (soon  to  be  "  restored  "  to  the  Deanery  of  Durham, 
and  later  to  become  Bishop  of  Winchester)  undertook  the 
task,  in  a  paper  which  has  come  down  to  us  intact 3 — cer- 
tainly able,  but  full  of  sophistries. 

The  Catholics  had  previously  obtained  the  concession 
that  they  might  prepare  their  written  statement,  embodying 
Cole's  speech,  ready  for  the  next  meeting;  but  when  Dr. 
Home  had  concluded  the  reading  of  his  paper  "the  bishops, 
thinking  that  all  these  things  were  merely  introductory, 
expected  that  he  would  have  put  the  arguments  into  syllo- 

1  1  Zur.,  p.  14,  No.  5. 

2  Cf.  Wood,  i,  p.  155  ;  Cooper,  i,  p.  417  ;  Dodd,  i,  p.  520;  Diet.  Nat. 
Biog.,  xi,  p.  266. 

3  Cf.  Strype,  Ann.,  i,  App.  xv. 


108       THE  WESTMINSTER  CONFERENCE 

gistic  form,"  that  is,  that  the  real  debate  would  then  be 
commenced.  "  But  the  Moderator,  as  had  been  settled 
between  him  and  the  Lutherans,  demanded  that  the 
speeches  of  each  side  should  be  given  to  him.  '  What 
speechl1  asked  the  Catholics;  'What  Cole  said,  he  de- 
livered not  as  a  complete  exposition  of  his  case,  but  merely 
as  an  opening  with  which  disputations  usually  begin.' 
■  Have  you  then  nothing  in  writing  on  the  topic?  '  "  rejoined 
Bacon.  "  When  the  bishops  had  answered  that  it  was  not 
usual  to  debate  in  writing,  the  Moderator  replied :  f  But 
so  it  was  agreed  amongst  you.'  The  bishops  admitted 
that  mention  had  been  made  of  writing,  but  that  they  had 
understood  differently,  viz.,  that  the  arguments  were  to  be 
reduced  into  writing  after  having  been  verbally  recited, 
and  not  that  the  whole  was  to  be  delivered  in  the  form  of 
a  continuous  speech  [or  treatise].  The  Moderator  laughed 
scornfully,  appearing  as  if  he  had  already  gained  the 
victory,  and  ordered  the  Catholics  to  write  what  they  had 
said,  and  what  they  intended  to  say.  The  bishops  asked 
time  to  do  this,  and  also  that  the  speech  of  their  opponents 
should  be  issued  to  them.  Two  days  were  given  for  writing 
out  what  they  thought  fit  on  that  day's  topic ;  and  it  was 
arranged  that  in  future  each  party  should  afterwards  de- 
liver its  speeches  to  the  other.  It  was  further  ordered  that 
they  should  also  prepare  for  the  second  question  against 
the  same  day."  l 

The  meeting  was  then  adjourned  till  the  following  Mon- 
day, 3rd  April.  It  is  evident  that  during  the  interval  the 
bishops  had  realised  the  serious  disadvantage  in  which  the 
Catholics  were  placed  by  the  opening  of  each  discussion 
being  left  to  them.  Accordingly,  in  order  to  manoeuvre 
themselves  out  of  this  prejudicial  position,  when  the  Con- 
ference met  again  on  3rd  April,  Dr.  White,  on  behalf  of  his 
colleagues,  demanded  that  what  they  had  put  into  writing 
during  the  adjournment  in  defence  of  the  first  proposition 
might  then  be  read.  The  Lord  Keeper,  however,  ruled 
that  the  Catholics  were  to  open  the  discussion  on  the 
1  Cath.  Rec.  Soc,  i,  p.  29. 


THE  WESTMINSTER  CONFERENCE       109 

second  point.  Sander  says  that  "  the  bishops  were  sur- 
prised at  this ;  for  though  they  had  prepared  what  to  say 
on  the  second  question,  they  objected  to  enter  upon  it  until 
the  first  was  finished.  In  the  first  place  they  respectfully 
asked  that,  as  the  Lutherans  had  given  public  utterance  to 
their  opinions,  by  which  the  people  might  be  led  into 
schism,  they  might  be  allowed  in  like  manner  to  read  in 
public  what  they  had  now  brought  in  writing.  The  Moder- 
ator replied  that  if  they  had  anything  written  they  might 
leave  it  with  him,  but  should  not  read  it  in  that  place  or  on 
that  day,  as  they  must  now  proceed  with  the  second 
question."1  A  lengthy  argument  thereupon  arose,  growing 
more  heated  as  it  proceeded  ;  and  Dr.  Watson,  Bishop 
of  Lincoln,  roundly  declared  that  they  were  not  being 
allowed  fair  play.  Dr.  Bayne,  of  Coventry  and  Lichfield, 
also  demanded  an  impartial  hearing:  that  they  might  "be 
heard  with  indifferency."  They  appealed  for  an  observance 
of  the  ordinary  form  of  procedure  both  in  School  disputa- 
tions and  in  legal  pleadings:  that  one  who  attacks  estab- 
lished conditions  should  commence  a  discussion,  and  that 
the  upholder  of  accepted  usages  should  answer:  that  the 
plaintiff  always  opens  a  case,  the  defendant  following.  And 
since  the  Catholic  doctrine  was,  as  it  were,  on  trial,  that  in 
each  proposition  it  was  impugned,  it  was  only  in  accord- 
ance with  precedent  that  the  Reformers  who  sought  to  over- 
turn it  and  wanted  change  should  open  their  batteries  on 
those  who  were  purely  on  the  defensive  in  their  support  of 
accepted  and  long-standing  doctrine.  The  Lord  Keeper, 
however,  was  obdurate  on  the  point  of  adhering  strictly  to 
the  order  as  originally  agreed  upon  :  the  bishops  were 
now  equally  firm  in  their  determination  to  suffer  no  further 
prejudice  to  the  Catholic  cause.  There  was  a  deadlock,  all 
the  other  disputants  supporting  Watson  and  Bayne,  with 
the  exception  of  Abbot  Feckenham,  who,  "  though  declar- 
ing that  the  demand  made  to  them  was  unjust,  neverthe- 
less, having  been  so  brought  up,  that  he  could  never  fear  a 
heretic,  he  would  not  refuse  to  dispute  on  the  second  ques- 
1  Cat  A.  Rec.  Soc,  i,  p.  30. 


no       THE  WESTMINSTER  CONFERENCE 

tion."  Sander,  who  reports  this  compromise  for  peace'  sake, 
evidently  disapproved  of  so  conciliatory  a  concession,  for 
he  says  that  "  the  others,  with  reason,  differed  from  this 
opinion."  It  at  least  showed  that  the  unwillingness  of  the 
Catholics  did  not  proceed  from  any  desire  to  shirk  the  en- 
counter, but  that  they  were  fighting  in  an  honest  endeavour 
to  secure  some  measure  of  fair  play  and  impartiality.  But 
Bacon  availed  himself  of  the  advantage  the  recalcitrance  of 
the  Catholics  appeared  to  give  him,  and  the  Conference 
was  accordingly  broken  up,  the  Lord  Keeper  dispersing 
the  meeting  with  the  ominous  words:  "  My  lords,  sith  that 
ye  are  not  willing,  but  refuse  to  read  your  writing  after  the 
order  taken,  we  will  break  up  and  depart;  and  for  that  ye 
will  not  that  we  should  hear  you,  you  may  perhaps  shortly 
hear  of  us."1  And  they  did;  for  that  very  afternoon  the 
bishops  were  summoned  to  the  palace.  What  precisely 
took  place  there  is  nowhere  recorded.  It  may  be  surmised 
that  they  had  to  appear  before  the  Council,  but  this  is  not 
definitely  stated.  However,  in  the  Acts  of  the  Privy 
Council  under  that  date,  it  is  noted  that  a  letter  was  sent 
"  to  the  Lieutenant  of  the  Tower,  with  the  bodies  of  the 
Bishops  of  Winchester  and  Lincoln,  whom  he  is  willed  to 
keep  in  sure  and  several  ward."  In  other  respects  they 
were  to  be  treated  in  accordance  with  their  rank,  in  parti- 
cular Dr.  Watson,  who  was  at  that  time  in  indifferent 
health.  The  Privy  Council  was  not,  however,  content  with 
these  measures  of  severity,  but  deputed  two  of  its  members, 
Sir  Ambrose  Cave  and  Sir  Richard  Sackville,  "to  repair  to 
the  houses  of  the  said  Bishops  of  Winchester  and  Lincoln, 
here  in  London,  and  both  to  peruse  their  studies  and 
writings,  and  also  to  take  order  with  their  officers  for  the 
surety  and  stay  of  their  goods.""  The  other  disputants 
were  bound  over  in  their  own  recognisances  to  appear  daily 
before  the  Council,  or,  if  attending  Parliament,  before  the 
Lord  Keeper,  till  judgment  should  be  passed  upon  them. 
Their   several   appearances   are   recorded   in  the  Council 

1  Foxe,  Acts  and  M on.,  ed.  1839,  viii,  p.  692. 

2  Vol.  i,  p.  263. 


THE  WESTMINSTER  CONFERENCE        in 

Register  till  ioth  May,  when  they  were  all  subjected  to  a 
heavy  fine,  varying  in  each  case  according  to  the  degree  of 
the  opposition  they  had  offered  to  Sir  Nicholas  Bacon  at 
the  Conference.1 

The  official  account2  of  this  celebrated  meeting,  furnished 
the  version  of  it  which  it  was  desired  that  the  public  should 
accept.  Even  in  that  one-sided  statement,  it  is  impossible 
not  to  see  that  a  hard  measure  of  justice  was  meted  out  to 
the  Catholic  champions:  indeed,  that  fair  play  was  denied 
them.  When  another  contemporary  account  is  consulted 
that  conviction  is  strengthened.  The  Count  de  Feria  sent 
a  full  and  minute  description  of  the  Conference  to  Philip 
the  day  after  its  close,  and  the  details  it  contains  shows 
that  he  must  have  been  present,  and  therefore  his  evidence 
is  important  as  being  that  of  an  eye-witness.3  Feria's 
version  proves  the  substantial  accuracy  of  the  official  one; 
but  it  brings  out  clearly  the  points  there  glossed  over. 
Before,  however,  considering  that  important  letter,  it  will 
be  well  to  bring  into  the  light  some  of  the  inner  history  of 
the  inception  of  the  Conference,  which  may  be  gathered 
from  a  letter  of  his  of  a  week  earlier,4  in  which  he  says  that 
shortly  before  that  date  the  Queen  had  laid  her  commands 
on  the  disputants  to  meet  in  conference.     He  then  con- 

1  See,  too,  Jewel's  narration  to  Peter  Martyr,  i  Ziir.,  p.  16,  No.  5, 
"  On  the  day  after  [this  is  wrong ;  it  was,  as  the  Acts  of  the  Privy 
Council  show,  on  the  very  afternoon]  your  friend  White,  Bishop  of 
Winchester,  and  Watson,  Bishop  of  Lincoln,  were  committed  to  the 
Tower  for  open  contempt  and  contumacy.  There  they  are  now  em- 
ployed in  castrametatioti,  and  from  weak  premisses  draw  bold  con- 
clusions. The  rest  are  bound  in  recognisances  to  appear  at  Court 
from  day  to  day,  and  await  the  determination  of  the  Council  respecting 
them."  Machyn,  in  his  Diary,  p.  192,  is  correct;  for  under  3rd  April 
he  says:  "the  sam  nyght,  my  lord  bysshope  of  Wynchester  and  my 
lord  of  Lynkolne  was  send  to  the  towre  of  London  by  the  gard  by 
water,  to  the  Old  Swane,  and  to  Belynsgatt  after  .  .  ." 

-  P.R.O.  Dom.  Eliz.,  in,  No.  54,  signed  by  Bacon,  Bedford,  Shrews- 
bury, Pembroke,  Rogers,  Knollys,  Cecil,  Cave,  and  Clynton. 

3  Chron.  Belg.,  No.  CCCXXXlll,  i,  p.  489,  4th  April,  1559. 

4  P.R.O.,  Foreign,  Eliz.,  Spanish,  I,  No.  22;  Chron.  Belg.,  No. 
cccxxxi,  i,  p.  487,  30th  March,  1559. 


ii2       THE  WESTMINSTER  CONFERENCE 

tinues:  "  I  have  been  pleased  to  bring  the  matter  to  this 
point,  and  am  now  trying  to  devise  means  to  avoid  any 
trick  or  subtlety  in  the  form  of  the  dispute,  which  the 
heretics  may  take  advantage  of  afterwards.  The  best  way 
that  has  occurred  is  that  the  dispute  should  be  in  Latin 
and  in  writing,  and  that  each  disputant  should  sign  what 
he  says.  The  Queen  at  first  had  consented  to  this;  but 
afterwards  they  sent  to  the  Catholics  to  say  that  the 
discussion  was  to  be  conducted  in  the  vulgar  tongue,  by 
speech,  and  in  Parliament,  which  would  be  very  bad. 
I  shall  go  to  the  Queen  to-morrow  and  see  whether  I  can- 
not persuade  her  to  return  to  the  former  conditions."  It 
would  seem  from  this  letter  that  Feria  had  been  consulted 
about  the  project,  but  that  the  advice  he  had  offered  was 
rejected,  after  it  had  been,  apparently,  accepted.  His  plan, 
formulated  to  checkmate  any  tendency  on  the  part  of  the 
reformers  to  have  recourse  to  "trick  or  subtlety,"  was  used 
to  secure  the  undoing  of  the  Catholics,  for  in  a  careful 
manipulation  of  the  Conference  was  seen  to  be  an  oppor- 
tunity for  belittling  the  bishops,  as  had  been  suggested  at 
Sir  Thomas  Smythe's  house  in  the  previous  December.  It 
is  clear  that,  as  Foxe  has  pointed  out,  the  proposal  to  have 
the  Conference  in  writing,  or  that  the  debate  should  be  re- 
ported by  secretaries,  emanated  from  the  Catholics,  or 
rather  from  the  Spanish  ambassador;  but  that  this  arrange- 
ment was  altered  by  the  reformers.  The  bishops  falling  in 
with  the  alteration  came  prepared  for  a  verbal  discussion, 
but  Bacon  and  his  colleagues  went  back  upon  this  under- 
standing without  giving  their  adversaries  due  notice. 
Naturally,  therefore,  the  bishops  complained  of  the  trick 
that  had  been  played  upon  them  to  their  manifest  dis- 
advantage, and  exerted  every  sinew  to  have  the  deception 
rectified.  If  the  Count  de  Feria's  letter  of  4th  April1  be 
now  consulted,  it  becomes  plain  that  the  bishops  were  told 
only  of  the  altered  decision  as  to  having  the  discussion  in 
English  instead  of  in  Latin ;  but  whoever  informed  them  of 
1  P.R.O.,  Foreign,  Eliz.,  Spanish,  1,  No.  21  j  Chron.  Belg.,  No. 
cccxxxm,  i,  p.  489- 


THE  WESTMINSTER  CONFERENCE        113 

that  portion  of  the  changed  arrangements,  failed  to  ac- 
quaint them  with  the  other  most  important  part  that  it  was 
to  be  in  writing,  as  had  been  originally  suggested,  and  not 
a  verbal  argument.  Under  all  the  circumstances  of  the 
case,  though  the  misunderstanding  may  have  been  due  to 
an  oversight,  it  is  difficult  not  to  see  in  it  the  outcome 
of  deliberate  "  trick  or  subtlety."  When,  therefore,  on  open- 
ing the  Conference,  Bacon  called  on  the  Catholics  to  read 
their  presentment  of  their  case,  they  were  unprepared  to  do 
so,  "  having  been  deceived  in  all  this."1 

The  official  account  of  the  Conference  records  that  before 
Dr.  Home  commenced  to  read  his  reply  to  the  first  ques- 
tion, one  of  that  party  "  made  a  prayer  and  invocation 
most  humbly  to  Almighty  God  for  the  induing  of  them 
with  His  most  Holy  Spirit,  and  a  protestation  also  to 
stand  to  the  doctrine  of  the  Catholic  Church  builded  upon 
the  Scriptures,  and  the  doctrine  of  the  Prophets  and 
Apostles.""  Sander's  version  reads  as  follows:  "  They,  in 
their  sanctimonious  manner,  falling  on  their  knees,  began 
to  pray.  The  judge  [Bacon]  did  the  same;  so  did  the 
Council  and  almost  all  the  audience.  The  Archbishop  of 
York  alone  neither  came  down  from  the  tribune,  nor  un- 
covered his  head,  nor  moved  his  lips,  but  erect  and  unmoved 
kept  his  seat,  obeying  the  ancient  canon  of  Laodicea,  which 
declares  it  unlawful  to  receive  the  blessing  of  heretics,  or  to 
pray  with  them,  I  q.  I  c.  '  Non  oportet '  [i.e.,  Canon  xxxil]. 
The  Catholic  Bishops  and  doctors  followed  his  example."  :! 
Feria  shows  why  Archbishop  Heath  and  the  others  acted 
as  they  did,  and,  moreover,  proves  that  the  official  account 
kept  back  a  not  unimportant  detail.  He  relates  that  im- 
mediately Dr.  Cole  had  finished  his  speech,  "  one  of  the 
heretics  rose,  and  kneeling  with  his  back  towards  the  altar 

1  "  Haber  sido  enganados."  The  translation  in  the  text  is  that  of 
Major  A.  M.  Hume,  whose  intimate  knowledge  of  Spanish  has  led 
him  to  adopt  that  rendering  rather  than  milder  equivalents  such  as 
misled  or  jnistaken.   The  difference  is  not  without  significance. 

2  P.R.O.  Dom.  Eliz.,  in,  No.  54. 

3  Cath.  Rec.  Soc,  i,  pp.  28-9. 

I 


ii4       THE  WESTMINSTER  CONFERENCE 

wJiere  the  Blessed  Sacrament  was,  he  offered  a  prayer,  etc." 
Thus  openly  to  outrage  the  feelings  and  beliefs  of  the 
Catholics  in  their  tenderest  point  was  truly  characteristic, 
not  only  of  the  men  who  perpetrated  the  insult,  but  also  of 
the  tendency  of  the  times.  Incidentally,  too,  we  learn  that 
the  three  points  for  discussion  were  selected  by  Bacon  him- 
self, who  with  a  very  bad  grace  at  last  gave  a  reluctant 
consent  that  the  bishops  should  reduce  to  writing  what 
had  been  brought  forward  by  Dr.  Cole  at  the  first  sitting, 
and  that  it  should  be  put  in  at  the  second  meeting.  When 
the  Monday  came,  and  the  bishops  were  ready  with  their 
written  paper  dealing  with  the  first  subject  of  discussion 
as  had  been  agreed  upon,  it  does  not  seem  to  have  alto- 
gether surprised  Feria  that  objections  were  raised  to  hear- 
ing their  treatise,  for  he  says  that  what  followed  shows 
that  the  Reformers  realised  that  the  bishops  had  much  to 
say,  and  feared  the  result  of  their  rejoinder  to  Home.  The 
account  of  the  altercation  that  followed  Bacon's  refusal  to 
hear  the  bishops'  paper  to  the  first  question,  and  his  insist- 
ence on  their  passing  to  the  second  subject  of  debate,  is 
much  the  same  in  Feria's  letter  as  in  Foxe's  or  the  official 
reports,  though  we  learn  that  four  separate  attempts  to  get 
a  hearing  for  the  delayed  paper  were  fruitlessly  made. 
Bacon  tried  to  end  the  impasse  by  suggesting  that  their 
paper  might  be  put  in  unread ;  but  the  bishops,  now  fully 
alive  to  the  danger  of  further  concession,  stoutly  insisted 
on  fair  play,  saying  that  equal  opportunities  should  be 
accorded  to  them  as  to  their  opponents.  Bacon  then 
played  his  trump  card.  He  informed  them  that  it  was  the 
wish  of  the  Queen  that  they  should  pass  on  to  the  second 
point,  and  asked  them  whether  they  were  willing  to  obey 
or  not.  "  The  bishops  replied  that  they  could  not  do  so 
without  great  prejudice  to  their  cause;  and,  complaining  of 
the  other  and  many  unfair  and  injurious  things  that  had 
been  done  to  them,  remained  firm  in  their  determination." 
By  thus  adroitly  placing  their  refusal  in  the  guise  of 
disobedience  to  the  Queen,  Bacon  put  the  bishops  in  an 
exceedingly  awkward  position.  Abbot  Feckenham,  with  the 


THE  WESTMINSTER  CONFERENCE       115 

intention  of  saving  the  situation,  here  intervened.  Feria 
puts  an  altogether  different  construction  on  his  words  from 
that  suggested  by  Foxe  or  in  the  official  account.  "  The 
Abbot  of  Westminster  said,"  according  to  Feria,  "that 
although  the  bishops  had  good  grounds  for  their  com- 
plaints, and  that  they  suffered  injury  in  being  forced  to  pass 
to  the  second  article,  having  come  provided  only  to  discuss 
the  first;1  yet,  in  order  to  obey  the  Queen's  orders,  he 
offered  to  reply  to  the  adversaries'  arguments  on  the 
second  proposition;  to  which,  although  the  others  did  not 
approve  of  it,  nevertheless  they  would  have  consented,  if 
the  heretics  had  propounded  their  case.  But  even  this 
could  not  be  agreed  upon  with  them,  for  Bacon  insisted 
that  the  Catholics  should  open  the  discussion  on  the  second 
article."  Bacon  was  undoubtedly  technically  within  the 
terms  regulating  the  discussion,  which  had  conferred  this 
dubious  honour  on  the  Catholics.  It  is  not  surprising, 
therefore,  that,  availing  himself  of  the  advantage,  he  check- 
mated this  attempt  on  the  part  of  the  bishops  to  extricate 
themselves  from  so  hampering  a  stipulation.  His  ruling 
brought  the  Bishops  of  Winchester  and  Lincoln  once  more 
to  their  feet,  protesting  against  their  being  thus  forced  to 
open  discussions  against  Catholic  teaching,  "  though  they 
were  content,"  they  asserted,  "  to  reply  to  them,  and  give 
proofs  of  the  Catholic  doctrine  to  those  who  sought  it,  even 
though  they  were  manifest  heretics."  A  passage  of  arms 
then  took  place  between  Bishop  Bayne  and  some  of  the 
preachers,  which  ended  in  the  discomfiture  of  the  latter,  as 
Feria  distinctly  states,  and  as  may  be  inferred  from  Foxe's 
narrative.  It  was  after  this  that  the  Conference  was  broken 
up.  Feria's  account,  here  drawn  upon,  was,  it  must  be  re- 
membered,  written   the   very   day   after   the  occurrences 

1  This  is  not  strictly  accurate,  but  it  is  in  a  minor  detail.  The 
bishops  were  prepared  to  discuss  the  second  topic,  but  only  after  the 
first  had  been  satisfactorily  disposed  of.  This  appears  clearly  from  the 
other  accounts.  Sander's  version,  already  quoted,  agrees  closely  with 
Feria's,  and  he  could  hardly  have  been  made  acquainted  with  the 
Ambassador's  private  despatch  to  King  Philip. 


n6       THE  WESTMINSTER  CONFERENCE 

related  took  place,  and  when  every  detail  was  fresh  in  the 
writer's  memory.  The  dramatic  and  graphic  touches  are, 
therefore,  all  the  more  reliable.  Feria  also  shows  that  Abbot 
Feckenham  escaped  the  fate  of  his  colleagues  simply  be- 
cause he  had  said  that  he  offered  to  discuss  the  second  ques- 
tion in  order  to  show  his  desire  to  obey  the  Queen.  Foxe  and 
the  rest  endeavour  to  separate  him  from  the  bishops ;  but 
his  constancy  was  proof  against  such  a  supposition,  as  the 
history  of  his  remaining  years  of  life,  many  and  sorrowful, 
spent  in  prison  or  restraint,  amply  testifies.  The  Council 
had  succeeded,  though  not  in  the  way  they  had  originally 
intended,  in  creating  a  plausible  case  in  prejudice  of  the 
bishops ;  two  of  their  most  uncompromising  and  outspoken 
opponents  they  were  able  to  remove  from  the  House  of 
Lords  for  the  critical  remainder  of  an  important  session; 
and,  as  Feria  told  Philip,  they  lost  no  time  in  discussing 
whether  a  case  had  not  been  made  out  for  depriving  them 
of  their  dignities,  or  at  least  for  a  confiscation  of  their 
revenues.  Feria  concluded  his  narrative  by  remarking  that 
"  the  Catholics,  as  well  they  might  be,  are  disturbed  to  see 
the  violence  and  injustice  with  which  this  matter  is  being 
conducted." 

It  was  the  object  of  the  Reformers  to  fasten  the  entire 
blame  for  the  break-up  of  the  Conference  on  the  Catholics. 
Thus  Jewel,  in  his  controversy  with  Cole  a  year  later,  wrote,1 
"  You  are  bound,  you  say,  and  may  not  dispute,2  .  .  .  But 
when  you  were  at  liberty,  and  a  free  disputation  was  offered 
you  at  Westminster  before  the  Queen's  most  honourable 
Council  and  the  whole  estate  of  the  realm,  I  pray  you, 
whether  part  was  it  that  then  gave  over? "  Dr.  Cole  re- 
joined: "...  We  refused  not  to  write  neither.  But  when 
our  book  could  not  be  read,  as  yours  was,  we  refused  not 
utterly  to  dispute,  but  only  in  the  case,  if  our  book  could  not 
be  suffered  to  be  read  as  indifferently  as  yours  was."  3  Jewel 
retorted  point  by  point  in  a  subsequent  reply;   but  one 

1  Works,  i,  p.  59,  8th  March,  1559-60. 

2  Cole  was  then  under  recognisance. 

8  Jewel,  Works,  i,  p.  59,  8th  April,  1560. 


THE  WESTMINSTER  CONFERENCE        117 

paragraph  alone  concerns  us  here:  it  is  Jewel's  version  of 
the  order  of  the  Conference.  "  The  order  of  the  disputation 
was,"  he  wrote,  "  that  both  parts  should  the  first  day  bring 
in  their  assertion  all  in  writing,  and  that  the  next  day  either 
party  should  answer  the  other's  book,  and  that  also  by 
writing ;  which  was  your  own  request,  as  it  will  appear  by 
your  protestation  sent  to  the  Council  in  that  behalf."  ' 
This  "  protestation  "  is  evidently  what  is  referred  to  in  the 
official  account,2  where,  discussing  the  unpreparedness  of 
the  bishops  with  written  material  on  the  opening  day,  it 
says:  "This  variation  from  the  former  order,  and  specially 
from  that  which  themselves  had,  by  the  said  Archbishop  in 
writing  before  required  (adding  thereto  the  reason  of  the 
Apostle,  that  to  contend  with  words  is  profitable  to  nothing, 
but  to  the  subversion  of  the  hearer,3  seemed  to  the  Queen's 
Majesty's  Council  somewhat  strange,"  etc.  It  is  to  be  noted 
that  in  this  "  challenge "  or  "  protestation,"  the  Catholic 
party  had  very  distinctly  stated  that  being  "  in  possession  " 
of  Catholic  truth  and  practice,  they  considered  that  the 
omis  lay  with  their  adversaries  to  produce  objections  there- 
to in  writing,  signed  by  themselves  to  obviate  future  mis- 
understandings and  falsifications.  They  also  suggested  that 
opportunity  should  be  given  to  both  parties  to  refute  and 
answer  one  another  as  often  as  should  be  found  needful, 
but  in  Latin  and  in  writing.  Finally,  in  case  of  disagree- 
ment as  to  the  meaning  of  any  passages  of  Scripture,  they 
appealed  to  the  interpretation  of  the  Church  and  of  the 
Fathers  for  decision  between  them.  Jewel  proceeded :  "  The 
first  day  ye  came  without  any  book  at  all,  contrary  to  the 
order  taken,  and  also,  as  I  have  said,  to  your  own  request. 
The  second  day  ye  refused  to  proceed  any  farther,  and 
stood  only  upon  this  point,  that,  unless  ye  might  have  the 
last  word,  ye  would  not  dispute.  For  ye  said,  whosoever 
might  have  that,  were  like  to  discedere  cum  applausu ;  for 
these  very  words  two  of  your  own  company  [Scot  and 

1  Works,  i,  p.  60,  18th  May,  1560;  cf.  P.R.O.  Dom.  Eliz.,  m,  No.  51, 
March,  1559. 

2  P.R.O.  Dom.  Eliz.,  in,  No.  54.  3  2  Tim.,  ii,  14. 


n8       THE  WESTMINSTER  CONFERENCE 

Feckenham]  uttered  in  Latin,  even  by  the  same  terms  as  I 
do  now;  otherwise  ye  said  ye  would  not  dispute."  ' 

As  Cox,  in  the  account  he  sent  to  Wolfgang  Weidner,2  is 
in  substantial  agreement  with  Jewel  and  Feria,  we  possess 
the  assurance  that  through  these  three  eye-witnesses  we 
have  the  main  facts:  the  opposite  points  of  view  taken  by 
them  enables  us  to  understand  fully  what  really  occurred ; 
and,  while  not  wholly  exonerating  the  Catholics  from  blame 
for  the  negligence  or  want  of  astuteness  which  characterised 
their  conduct  of  the  preliminary  settlement  of  terms,  thereby 
placing  themselves  and  their  cause  at  unnecessary  and  fatal 
disadvantage,  it  cannot  be  denied  that  the  Reformers  were 
guilty  of  underhand  and  deceptive  tactics.  After  all,  they 
were  but  carrying  out  the  policy  they  had  marked  out  for 
themselves.  The  Catholics,  in  their  "  challenge,"  asked  to 
be  allowed  to  meet  the  objections  of  the  Reformers.  Bacon 
and  the  Council  saw  their  opportunity,  and  so  arranged 
that  the  very  opposite  course  was  forced  upon  them.  But, 
unknowingly  and  unconsciously,  the  Catholics  played  still 
more  into  the  hands  of  their  enemies.  The  Canon  Row 
conciliabulum  had  decided  that  the  upholders  of  the  old 
order  "  must  be  based  of  authority,  discredited  in  their 
countries,  so  long  as  they  seem  to  repugn  to  the  true 
religion,  or  to  maintain  their  old  proceedings." 3  They  could 
not  have  desired  a  better  case  to  serve  their  turn  than  the 
bishops'  refusal  to  continue  the  Conference,  interpreted  into 
constructive  contempt  of  the  Queen  and  disobedience  to  her 
express  orders ;  and  Bacon  was  prompt  to  seize  the  chance 
thus  given.  It  is  difficult  to  see  in  what  way  the  bishops 
were  guilty  of  disobedience ;  but  in  those  days  it  was  im- 
possible to  argue  such  a  point;  and  with  the  apparent 
leniency  and  favour  earned  by  Abbot  Feckenham's  so- 
called  and  much-vaunted  submission  to  authority,  men's 
minds  were  easily  inflamed  against  the  bishops  for  their 
determination  to  defend  their  charge.    The  Canon   Row 

1  Works,  i,  p.  60,  1 8th  May,  1560. 

2  1  Zur.,  pp.  27-U,  No.  11,  20th  May,  1559. 

3  Cotton  MSS.,  Julius  F.  VI,  No.  86,  f.  167. 


THE  WESTMINSTER  CONFERENCE       119 

suggestions  included  this  one:  "No  office  of  jurisdiction 
or  authority  to  be  in  any  discontented  man's  hand,  so  far 
as  justice  or  law  may  extend."  With  such  directions  under 
his  eyes,  Bacon  was  driving  the  Catholic  party  into  such  an 
appearance  of  opposition  as  might  justify  their  being  pro- 
ceeded against,  and  "  based  of  authority."  The  Conference 
which  it  was  hoped  by  Feria  and  others  might  make  for 
the  triumph  of  the  Catholics,  was  adroitly  turned  to  the 
purposes  of  their  enemies.  The  Reformers  feared  the  in- 
fluence of  the  bishops  in  the  Upper  House.1  But  when  the 
Catholics  fell  into  the  trap  prepared  for  them  in  the  West- 
minster Conference,  they  lost  two  of  their  staunchest 
henchmen  from  the  voting  strength  of  their  party  in  the 
House  of  Lords.  As  the  Act  for  Uniformity  of  Worship 
was  carried  by  only  three  votes,2  the  importance  of  detach- 
ing, if  possible,  some  of  the  most  formidable  opponents  of 
change  from  the  steady  phalanx  arrayed  against  them,  was 
not  lost  upon  Cecil  and  Bacon.  The  lesson,  too,  was  meant 
to  be  impressed  upon  the  members  of  the  Lower  House ; 
and  the  official  account  of  the  Conference  given  to  the 
public  served  the  purpose  of  making  it  appear  that  the 
Reformers  had  triumphed.  Mr.  Child  3  sums  up  the  result 
with  the  trenchant  words:  "  While  no  one  was  really  con- 
vinced on  either  side,  the  henchmen  of  the  ruling  party 
were  credited  with  the  victory,  though  in  fact  it  was  but  a 
barren  display." 

On  the  other  hand,  Feria  told  Philip  that  "  the  effect  has 
been  a  good  one,  and  the  matter  ended  in  their  seeing  that 
they  were  doing  an  injustice  to  the  bishops,  who,  however, 
refused  to  allow  a  wrong  to  be  done  to  their  cause,  and  this 
has  greatly  encouraged  the  Catholics  and  thrown  the  heretics 
into  some  confusion."4 

1  1  Zur.,  p.  10,  No.  4,  Jewel  to  Peter  Martyr,  20th  March,  1558-9. 

2  Chron.  Belg.,  No.  CCCXLVi,  i,  p.  519,  10th  May,  1559;  Count  de 
Feria  to  Philip  II. 

3  Church  and  State  under  the  Tudors,  p.  1 84. 

4  Chron.  Belg.,  No.  CCCXXXV,  i,  p.  495,  nth  April,  1559. 


CHAPTER  IV 

THE  CLERGY  AND  THE  ACTS  OF  SUPREMACY 
AND  UNIFORMITY 

I. — The  Dismissal  of  the  Religious  and  the  Nor  then: 
Visitation 

THE  bishops,  with  one  exception,  remained  steadfast 
in  their  refusal  to  accept  the  religious  changes  in- 
augurated and  legalised  by  Acts  of  Parliament.  They  paid 
the  penalty  of  their  consistency  by  undergoing  imprison- 
ment of  varying  degrees  of  severity ;  but,  whether  the  re- 
straint put  upon  their  movements  and  their  freedom  was 
suffered  in  a  prison  or  in  a  bishop's  house,  it  was  equally  a 
restriction  endured  for  conscience'  sake.  It  remains  to  be 
seen  how  the  rest  of  the  clergy  fared;  and  at  once  it 
becomes  necessary  to  join  issue  with  most  historians  from 
the  reign  of  Elizabeth  down  to  the  present  day.  That 
severity  was  exercised  towards  the  recalcitrant  is  not 
denied  by  any  of  them;  by  some  the  fact  is  not  even 
deplored,  by  others  it  is  justified  by  the  exigency  of  times 
and  circumstances.  If  an  attempt  is  made  to  extenuate  and 
mitigate  the  facts  of  persecution  and  coercion,  the  com-> 
parative  fewness  of  the  individuals  who  fell  victims  to  the 
rigours  of  the  laws  recently  enacted  against  those  who  were 
unwilling  to  accept  the  new  order  is  appealed  to.  Modern 
historians,  as  Hallam,  Froude,  Creighton,  and  a  host  of 
others,  rely  for  their  statements  on  this  subject  upon  Collier, 
Burnet,  Strype,  Fuller,  Heylin,  and  Camden.  But  all  writers 
subsequent  to  Camden,  as  indeed  those  just  cited  are,  may 
be  found  on  examination  to  have  adopted  his  presentation 
of  the  facts  without  independent  enquiry  or  personal  re- 


THE  CLERGY  AND  THE  ACTS  121 

search.  Since,  then,  these  writers  are  reducible  to  Camden, 
they  may  be  disregarded,  and  it  will  be  sufficient  for  present 
purposes  to  quote  Camden  as  being  nearest  to  the  events 
and  to  the  period  with  which  we  are  here  concerned. 

As  an  example  of  the  modern  estimate  of  the  disturb- 
ance created  by  the  change,  Dr.  Mandell  Creighton,  some- 
time Bishop  of  London,  may  be  quoted :  "  In  England 
generally  the  religious  settlement  was  welcomed  by  the 
people  and  corresponded  to  their  wishes.  The  English 
were  not  greatly  interested  in  theological  questions.  They 
detested  the  Pope;  they  wished  for  services  which  they 
could  understand,  and  were  weary  of  superstition.  The 
number  of  staunch  Romanists  or  strong  Protestants  was 
very  small.  The  clergy  were  prepared  to  acquiesce  in  the 
change.  Out  of  9,400  clergy  in  England,  only  192  refused 
the  oath  of  Supremacy." *  This  verdict  is  supported  by 
Rev.  H.  Gee,  who  published  the  result  of  his  studies  in 
The  Elizabethan  Clergy,  professing  to  have  made  consider- 
able original  research,  and  devoting  an  entire  chapter  to  a 
calculation  of  the  numbers  deprived.  This  writer  states  as 
his  matured  conclusion  that  "  on  the  whole,  then,  we  cannot 
believe  that  many  more  than  200  were  deprived  for  such 
refusal,  within  the  limits  that  we  have  taken,"  [that  is, 
1558-65].  The  Rev.  W.  H.  Frere,  the  latest  writer  on  the 
subject,  endorses  Mr.  Gee.  "  Marian  changes  had  involved 
the  ejection  of  something  like  one-third  of  the  clergy  of  the 
parishes,"  he  writes;  but,  as  a  contrast  to  this,  he  points 
out  that  "the  crisis  of  1559  passed  off  without  disturbance, 
and  by  gentleness  and  judicious  management  the  cases  of 
hardship  and  of  actual  deprivation  of  the  clergy  were  kept 
down  to  a  quite  inconsiderable  figure;  in  the  first  six  years 
of  the  reign  no  more  than  400  are  recorded  to  have  been 
deprived  for  all  causes,  and  of  these  probably  not  more 
than  half  were  Marians." 2 

1  Queen  Elizabeth,  p.  53,  ed.  1899. 

2  The  English  Church  in  the  Reigns  of  Elizabeth  and  James  /, 
1904,  p.  40.  On  p.  104,  speaking  specifically  of  the  Marian  clergy,  he 
again  states  that  "a  small  number  were  deprived — not  more  than 


122  THE  CLERGY  AND  THE  ACTS 

The  unanimous  conclusion  of  the  latest  historians  coin- 
cides with  fair  closeness  with  Hallam's  statement.1  "  In  the 
summer  of  1 5  59  the  Queen  appointed  a  general  ecclesiastical 
visitation,"  he  wrote,  "  to  compel  the  observance  of  the  Pro- 
testant formularies.  It  appears  from  their  reports  that  only 
about  one  hundred  dignitaries  and  eighty  parochial  priests 
resigned  their  benefices  or  were  deprived."  In  a  note,  he 
refers  to  Burnet  and  to  Strype  as  his  authorities  for  the 
above  statement.  The  note  then  proceeds :  "  Pensions  were 
reserved  for  those  who  quitted  their  benefices  on  account 
of  religion." 2  "  This  was  a  very  liberal  measure,  and  at  the 
same  time  a  politic  check  on  their  conduct.  Lingard  thinks 
the  number  must  have  been  much  greater;  but  the  Visitors' 
reports  seem  the  best  authority.  It  is,  however,  highly 
probable  that  others  resigned  their  preferments  afterwards, 
when  the  casuistry  of  their  Church  grew  more  scrupulous. 
It  may  be  added  that  the  Visitors  restored  the  married 
clergy  who  had  been  dispossessed  in  the  preceding  reign ; 
which  would  of  course  considerably  augment  the  number 
of  sufferers  for  Popery."  It  is  evident  that  when  Hallam 
dismissed  Lingard  with  the  curt  reference  to  the  Visitors' 
reports,  he  can  never  have  seen  them,  and  that  his  opinion 
rests  on  information  which  was,  at  best,  second-hand.  In 
the  first  place,  Visitors'  reports  are  unfortunately  singularly 
wanting  for  the  particular  period  referred  to;  and  had 
Hallam  had  the  opportunity  of  seeing  and  studying  the 
one  report  which,  though  fairly  full,  is  nevertheless  incom- 
plete and  inconclusive,  he  could  never  have  committed  him- 
self to  the  statement  above  quoted.  As  will  be  seen  later, 
the  results  of  the  Northern  Visitation  do  not  bear  out  the 
customary  conclusions,  but  tell  rather  the  other  way. 
Hallam  is  generally  so  conspicuously  fair  and  impartial  as 
an  historian  that  it  seems  necessary  to  point  out  that  if  he 
has  been  misled  in  this  matter,  others,  not  so  painstaking 
as  he,  either  through  want  of  knowledge,  bias,  or  failure  or 

about   two   hundred,  so   it   appears, — in   the  first   six   years   of  the 
reign." 

1  Hist,  of  Engl.,  i,  p.  in.  a  Burnet,  ii,  p.  398. 


OF  SUPREMACY  AND  UNIFORMITY       123 

carelessness  in  consulting  and  understanding  the  documents 
which  would  have  provided  a  truer  solution  of  this  question, 
have  helped  to  perpetuate  or,  at  least,  to  prolong  the  life 
of  the  accepted  fable. 

This  chapter  and  others  to  follow  will  show  that  Lingard's 
intuitions  were  not  only  nearer  to  the  real  facts,  but  also 
more  intrinsically  probable  than  the  conclusions  of  other 
historians  who  have  either  preceded  or  succeeded  him  in 
point  of  time. 

Camden,  the  noted  antiquary,  was  a  diligent  collector  of 
manuscripts  and  other  remains  bearing  on  the  history  of 
England.  His  Annals  are  a  fitting  monument  to  his  in- 
dustry: but  it  may  be  conceded  that  the  many  excellences 
of  that  work  do  not  necessarily  imply  that  he  sifted  his 
materials  or  weighed  his  evidence.  As  a  collector  of  facts 
he  is  famous :  as  an  historian,  those  who  have  occasion  to 
consult  his  pages  realise  that  he  is  not  to  be  taken  as  a  final 
authority;  and  as  he  but  seldom  adduces  documentary 
proof  for  his  statements,  their  correctness  is  open  to  the 
ordinary  test  of  research,  and  under  this  test  they  not 
infrequently  break  down.  His  version  of  the  deprivations 
of  1559  is  explicit.  After  briefly  recounting  the  course  of 
events  subsequent  to  the  rising  of  Parliament,  including 
the  tendering  of  the  oath  of  Supremacy,  his  narrative  pro- 
ceeds thus :  "  such  as  refused  the  oath  were  deprived  of 
their  livings,  bishoprics,  and  other  ecclesiastical  prefer- 
ments. The  number  of  whom,  all  the  kingdom  over,  accord- 
ing to  their  own  accounts  (and  we  may  reckon  in  England 
above  9,400  ecclesiastical  preferments),  amounted  to  no 
more  than  eighty  parish  rectors,  fifty  prebendaries,  fifteen 
heads  of  colleges,  twelve  archdeacons,  and  as  many  deans, 
six  abbots  and  abbesses,  and  fourteen  bishops,  being  all 
that  then  sat  (except  only  Anthony,  Bishop  of  Llandaff, 
who  was  the  scourge  of  his  diocese)."  l  In  Baker's  Chron- 
icle, Camden's  words  are  reproduced  almost  verbatim,  with 
the  omission  of  the  reference  to  the  nuns.  As  another  in- 
stance of  the  close  similarity  of  his  copyists  to  their  original, 
1  Annals  (ed.  1706),  vol.  ii,  p.  376.  2  Ed.  1730,  p.  329. 


124  THE  CLERGY  AND  THE  ACTS 

Fuller  may  here  be  quoted :  "  Nor  were  there  more  than 
eighty  rectors  of  churches,  fifty  prebendaries,  fifteen  mas- 
ters of  colleges,  twelve  archdeacons,  twelve  deans,  with  six 
abbots  and  abbesses  deprived  at  this  time  of  their  places 
throughout  all  England."  ' 

Another  point  to  be  taken  into  consideration  is  that 
Camden  professedly  relied  for  his  figures,  not  on  the  result 
of  any  independent  research  of  his  own,  but  on  Catholic 
sources,  as  he  said:  "according  to  their  own  accounts." 
These  sources  are,  of  course,  Sander's  list,  and  that  to  be 
found  in  Bridgewater's  Concertatio.  But  it  has  never  been 
claimed  for  these  lists,  either  by  their  compilers  or  by  any 
one  else  with  a  knowledge  of  the  circumstances  under  which 
they  were  drawn  up,  that  they  were  final  and  exhaustive. 
They  were  no  more  than  attempts  to  collect  such  informa- 
tion as  could  be  gathered  under  difficult  and  well-nigh 
impossible  conditions.  Further,  whereas  Camden  referred 
to  " 9,400  ecclesiastical  preferments"  Creighton,  following 
Strype,  writes  of  "9,400  clergy  in  England."  These  are  by- 
no  means  synonymous  statements.  Nine  thousand  four 
hundred  is  certainly  a  maximum  limit  to  assign  for  the 
number  of  parishes  in  England  and  Wales  at  Queen  Eliza- 
beth's accession,  but  it  is  altogether  too  high  for  the  total 
of  clergy  actually  serving  them,  for  the  evidence  goes  to 
show  that  not  only  were  many  parishes  destitute  of  a  par- 
son, but  that  many  of  the  clergy  were,  owing  to  the  paucity 
of  their  numbers,  pluralists.  This  paucity  of  numbers  in 
the  ranks  of  the  clergy  was  due  to  several  causes.  The 
Universities  which  had  suffered  greatly  on  the  dissolution 
of  the  religious  establishments  under  Henry  VIII,  had 
been  almost  denuded  of  students  during  Edward  VI's  short 
reign,  and  the  restoration  of  Catholicism  under  Mary  had 
not  lasted  long  enough  to  counteract  the  results  of  the 
previous  falling-off  in  the  number  of  the  candidates  for 
Holy  Orders.  The  difficulty  experienced  in  the  early  years 
of  Elizabeth's  reign  in  providing  ministers  in  sufficient 
numbers  to  fill  up  the  many  vacant  cures,  when  it  was 
1  Church  History  (ed.  1655),  Bk.  IX,  p.  59. 


OF  SUPREMACY  AND  UNIFORMITY       125 

found  necessary  to  press  into  the  service  somewhat  by 
wholesale,  cobblers  and  such  like  unlearned  mechanics, 
was  not,  therefore,  altogether  a  new  one,  or  entirely  due  to 
the  change  of  religion  then  effected.  But  the  difficulty  then 
experienced  proves  clearly  that  preferments  and  clergy 
were  not  in  equal  proportions.  It  also  helps  to  dispose  of 
another  contention.  It  has  been  customary  hitherto  to 
argue  by  percentages,  and  to  assert  that  200  only  out  of 
9,400  clergy  refused  to  conform ;  but  the  proportion  is  altered 
if,  say,  500  out  of  8,500  proved  recalcitrant.  A  readjustment 
of  figures,  as  here  indicated,  will,  at  a  later  stage,  be  at- 
tempted. 

Meanwhile,  the  results  as  hitherto  chronicled  were 
brought  about  by  a  series  of  steps,  well-defined,  clear,  and 
orderly. 

With  the  Acts  of  Supremacy  and  Uniformity  at  their 
command  wherewith  to  enforce  submission,  the  Council  is- 
sued a  Royal  Commission  on  23rd  May,  1559,  for  the  pur- 
pose of  tendering  the  oath  of  Supremacy  to  the  clergy. 
Those  to  whom  the  execution  of  this  measure  was  entrusted 
were,  some  of  them  laymen,  some  of  them  ecclesiastics,  but 
all  of  advanced  reforming  tendencies — Puritans,  as  they 
came  to  be  called  at  a  later  date.1  The  terms  of  the  Com- 
mission and  the  names  of  the  members  composing  it  may 
be  seen  in  Rymer's  Foedera?  The  immediate  result  of  this 
Commission  was  the  removal  of  all  save  one  of  the  bishops 
from  their  Sees  within  the  following  six  months.  It  also 
got  rid  of  the  Dean  of  St.  Paul's,  and  of  the  few  existing 
religious  communities,  whose  fate  may  here  be  briefly 
recorded. 

During  Mary's  short  reign,  she  managed  to  refound  six 
religious  houses,  four  for  men  and  two  for  women,  out 
of  the  scattered  remnants  of  the  monks,  friars,  and  nuns 

1  R.  Simpson,  Life  of  Campion  (ed.  1896),  p.  192,  quotes  Sir  Robert 
Cotton  as  saying  that  this  epithet,  now  so  universally  associated  with 
the  extremists  of  that  period,  "was  first  pinned  to  their  skirts  by 
Father  Sander  about  1 570." 

2  Vol.  xv,  pp.  518-9. 


126  THE  CLERGY  AND  THE  ACTS 

who  had  formerly  peopled  the  hundreds  of  abbeys,  mon- 
asteries, and  convents  established  throughout  the  length 
and  breadth  of  England  before  the  Dissolution.  These  so 
reconstituted  were  at  Westminster,  Smithfield,  Greenwich, 
Sheen,  Syon,  and  King's  Langley  (afterwards  Dartford, 
Kent). 

The  Franciscan  Observants  of  Greenwich  had  been 
among  the  stoutest  defenders  of  the  legality  of  Catherine 
of  Aragon's  marriage  with  Henry  VIII,  and  had  in  conse- 
quence experienced  the  full  force  of  the  King's  vengeance. 
It  was  but  natural,  therefore,  that  Mary,  like  her  deeply- 
wronged  mother,  should  cherish  a  particular  affection  for 
that  Order,  and  that  she  should  take  a  keen  interest  in  re- 
instating the  friars  in  their  old  home.  They  had  begun  to 
reassemble  there  in  1553,  shortly  after  Mary's  accession; 
and  in  1555  the  friary  and  church  were  solemnly  and 
canonically  reopened.1  But  Mary's  death  so  soon  after 
dashed  their  hopes ;  and  Elizabeth's  first  Parliament,  having 
decreed  the  suppression  of  the  newly  restored  religious 
houses,  the  Franciscans  availed  themselves  of  the  earliest 
opportunity  that  presented  itself  to  get  out  of  the  country, 
and  succeeded  in  withdrawing  to  the  Continent  unmolested, 
taking  with  them  all  their  belongings.2  Machyn  furnishes 
us  with  the  precise  date  of  their  departure,  which  was  a 
full  month  before  any  of  the  other  religious  followed  them. 
"  The  12  day  of  June,  the  friars  of  Greenwich  went  away." 

Those  of  the  austere  Carthusians  who  had  survived  the 
savage  butcheries  of  Henry  VIII,  came  together  from  their 
places  of  individual  retreat  in  Flanders  or  in  England  at 
the  earliest  opportunity,  and  began  once  more  the  strict 
observance  of  their  Rule  in  common,  in  a  former  house  of 
their  Order  at  Sheen,  near  Richmond  in  Surrey,  under  the 
priorship  of  Dom  Maurice  Chauncy,  a  survivor  of  the 
heroic  band  of  Fathers  of  the  London  Charterhouse. 

1  Fr.  Thaddeus,  Franciscans  i?i  England,  p.  1 7. 

5  These  details  are  contained  in  a  letter  written  by  Fr.  Ric.  Har- 
grave,  O.P.,  to  the  Master-General  of  the  Dominicans,  printed  in  Pio's 
Delle  Vite  de  gli  Huo?nini  de  S.  Domtnico,  1607,  p.  377. 


OF  SUPREMACY  AND  UNIFORMITY       127 

In  1555  a  community  of  Dominican  friars  was  re- 
organised by  Queen  Mary  in  London;  but  as  their  ancient 
foundation  at  Blackfriars  was  not  available,  they  were  in- 
stalled in  the  Priory  of  St.  Bartholomew  in  Smithfield,  in 
the  year  1556.  Machyn  says,  incorrectly,  that  it  was  "the 
[first]  house  that  was  set  up  by  Queen  Mary's  time."  Fr. 
William  Perin  was  appointed  to  the  priorship  of  the  con- 
vent, composed  of  English,  Spanish,  and  Belgian  friars; 
but  he  died  in  1558,  when  Fr.  Richard  Hargrave  was 
elected  to  take  his  place.  The  Letters  Patent  of  the  Mas- 
ter-General of  the  Order  confirming  Fr.  Hargrave's  election 
only  reached  England  at  the  Easter  of  1559.  The  friar  to 
whom  they  were  directed,  fearful  of  incurring  a  praemunire, 
handed  them  over  to  the  Privy  Council,  who  took  measures 
to  prevent  Fr.  Hargrave  from  entering  upon  his  office. 
Fr.  Hargrave,  from  whose  pen  we  have  an  account  of  these 
transactions,  states  that  after  Fr.  Perin's  death,  some  more 
of  the  friars,  presumably  old  men,  also  died,  while  others 
who  were  foreigners  returned  to  their  own  countries,  no 
doubt  when  suppression  was  looming  in  the  near  future. 
Thus  it  came  about  that  when,  as  Machyn  records,  on  "  the 
13  day  of  July  the  Black  Friars  in  Smithfield  went  away," 
there  were  then  in  residence  to  quit  the  convent  but  three 
priests  and  one  young  man ;  and  these,  to  quote  Fr.  Har- 
grave's words :  "  chose  to  remain  in  England  and  enjoy  the 
flesh  pots  of  Egypt  to  being  abject  in  the  house  of  the 
Lord."  ]  What  became  of  them  is  not  recorded ;  but  from 
the  above  words,  it  may  be  suspected  that  they  conformed. 
From  the  time  of  the  landing  of  St.  Augustine  on  the 
shores  of  Kent  in  A.D.  597  till  the  Dissolution  of  the  greater 
monasteries  in  1539,  for  well-nigh  a  thousand  years,  the 
sons  of  St.  Benedict  had  taken  an  important  part  in  the 
social,  political,  and,  above  all,  religious  life  of  the  country. 
They  had  reared  many  magnificent  abbeys,  such  as,  to 
name  but  a  few,  St.  Alban's,  Glastonbury,  Westminster, 
Bury  St.  Edmund's,  Ely,  Peterborough,  Gloucester,  and 
Evesham.  Twelve  of  the  cathedrals  of  England  had  been 
1  Pio,  Delle  Vite  de  gli  Huomini  de  S.  Dovu'nz'co,  p.  377. 


128  THE  CLERGY  AND  THE  ACTS 

founded  and  served  by  Benedictine  communities,  who  ful- 
filled in  their  regard  the  functions  of  canons  in  secular 
Chapters.  Canterbury,  Durham,  Winchester,  and  Worcester, 
for  example,  attest  their  labours.  Yet  all  were  dispersed  by 
Henry  VIII.  On  Mary's  accession,  when  she  began  her 
heroic  efforts  to  repair  the  ravages  of  the  preceding  few 
years,  the  ancient  Benedictine  body  was  not  forgotten,  nor 
its  historical  claim  to  recognition,  and  a  beginning  was 
made  with  the  work  of  restoration  by  reinstalling  the 
monks  in  their  famous  abbey  of  Westminster.  Plans  were 
even  discussed  for  reviving  the  ancient  glories  of  Glaston- 
bury ;  but  all  such  ideas  were  rendered  nugatory  by  Mary's 
death  and  Elizabeth's  advent  to  power.  Dr.  John  Fecken- 
ham  (or  Howman)  had,  before  the  Dissolution,  been  a 
monk  at  Evesham,  and  had  taken  the  degree  of  Bachelor 
of  Divinity  at  Oxford,  being  a  student  of  "  Monk's  College  " 
or  Gloucester  Hall,  now  known  as  Worcester  College. 
When  Evesham  was  suppressed,  Feckenham  returned  to 
Oxford  to  continue  his  studies,  but  soon  became  chaplain 
to  the  Bishop  of  Worcester.  In  1543  he  joined  Bishop 
Edmund  Bonner  in  London,  and  received  the  living  of 
Solihull  in  Warwickshire,  and  during  the  reign  of  Ed- 
ward VI  suffered  imprisonment  for  his  staunchness  to  his 
religious  views,  but  somehow  escaped  deprivation.  On 
Mary's  accession  he  was  released,  again  became  chaplain 
to  Bishop  Bonner  (then  also  released  from  prison),  and  was 
nominated  a  prebendary  of  St.  Paul's  in  1554.  Other  pre- 
ferment rapidly  followed:  he  was  made  one  of  the  Queen's 
chaplains  and  her  confessor,  and  before  the  end  of  that 
year  he  was  appointed  Dean  of  St.  Paul's.  But  Feckenham 
was  anxious  to  resume  his  religious  life  at  the  earliest 
opportunity,  and,  in  short,  resigning  his  Deanery,  was,  on 
the  restoration  of  the  abbey  of  Westminster,  appointed 
Abbot,  and  there  gathered  under  his  rule  a  fairly  numerous 
community,  composed  partly  of  members  of  suppressed 
houses(as  he  himself  was),partly  of  aspirants  to  the  monastic 
life.  When  Mary  died  he  had  a  community  of  about  forty 
monks  and  novices.    Machyn  has  preserved  the  date  of  the 


OF  SUPREMACY  AND  UNIFORMITY       129 

re-opening  of  the  abbey,  as  well  as  other  interesting  details. 
On  2 1  st  November,  1556,  "the  new  Abbot  of  Westminster 
put  in,  Dr.  Feckenham,  late  Dean  of  Paul's,  and  fourteen 
more  monks  shorn  in;  and  the  morrow  after,  the  Lord 
Abbot  with  his  convent  went  a  procession  after  the  old 
fashion  in  their  monks'  weed,  in  cowls  1  of  black  say,  with 
two  vergers  carrying  two  silver  rods  in  their  hands ;  and  at 
evensong  time  the  vergers  went  through  the  cloister  to  the 
Abbot ;  and  so  went  into  the  church  afore  the  high  Altar ; 
and  there  my  Lord  kneeled  down  and  his  convent,  and 
after  his  prayer  made,  was  brought  into  the  Choir  with  the 
vergers  and  so  into  his  place,  and  incontinently  he  began 
evensong."  The  crowning  scene  was  enacted  a  week  later, 
when  on  "  the  29  day  of  November  was  my  Lord  Abbot 
consecrated  at  Westminster  Abbey;  and  there  was  great 
company,  and  he  was  made  Abbot,  and  did  wear  a  mitre ; 
and  my  Lord  Cardinal  was  there,  and  many  bishops,  and 
my  Lord  Chancellor  did  sing  Mass,  and  the  Abbot  made 
the  sermon."  Machyn  relates  in  his  diary  several  instances 
showing  that  the  old  privileges  were  regained  and  exer- 
cised ;  and  we  read  of  the  great  ceremony  attending  the 
replacing  of  the  body  of  King  Edward  the  Confessor  in  its 
shrine,  on  20th  March,  1557;  of  many  sermons  preached  by 
Abbot  Feckenham;  of  the  part  taken  by  him  and  his 
monks  at  the  funeral  of  Lady  Anne  of  Cleves,  the  repudiated 
wife  of  Henry  VIII;  of  the  ceremonious  making  of  the 
great  Paschal  Candle,  of  the  weight  of  three  hundred  pounds 
of  wax,  for  use  in  the  Abbey.  This  function  took  place  on 
St.  Benedict's  day,  21st  March,  1558;  the  Master  and  Ward- 
ens of  the  Waxchandlers'  Company  were  present,  and  were 
afterwards  entertained  at  a  "  great  dinner." 

Only  two  of  the  numerous  communities  of  nuns  which 
had  existed  in  England  before  the  Dissolution,  were  revived 
during  the  short  period  of  Mary's  reign.  One  of  these  was 
"  the  monastery  of  St.  Saviour  and  St.  Bridget  of  Syon  " — 
to  give  it  its  full  designation — which  from  its  foundation  in 
141 5  till  its  suppression  in  1539  had  been  situated  at  Isle- 

1  "Collys":  read  by  Strype  {Mem.  Ill,  ii,  p.  506),  as  "cottys,"  coats. 
K 


1 3o  THE  CLERGY  AND  THE  ACTS 

worth,  Middlesex.  The  nuns  at  that  time  withdrew  to  a 
monastery  of  their  Order  in  Flanders.  Through  Cardinal 
Pole's  good  offices,  fifteen  choir-nuns  and  three  lay-sisters 
returned  to  their  old  home  by  the  banks  of  the  Thames,  in 
1557.  Machyn  furnishes  the  details.  "The  first  day  of 
August  the  nuns  of  Syon  was  closed  in  by  my  Lord  Bishop 
of  London  and  my  Lord  Abbot  of  Westminster,  and  certain 
of  the  Council,  and  certain  friars  of  that  Order  [clothed  in 
habits]  of  sheep  colour  as  the  sheep  beareth;  and  they  had 
[given  them]  as  great  a  charge  of  their  living,  and  never  to 
go  forth  as  long  as  they  do  live,  but  ever  .  .  ."  The  manu- 
script of  the  diary  is  here  defective.  The  defect  was,  how- 
ever, significant  of  the  near  future;  two  short  years  sufficed 
to  render  the  "  charge  "  nugatory,  and  to  send  the  nuns  once 
more  adrift.  They  had,  of  course,  been  for  some  time  in 
England  before  taking  part  in  the  ceremony  of"  enclosure  " 
thus  described  in  halting  fashion  by  Machyn.  The  surviv- 
ing monks  of  Syon  who,  on  the  occasion  described,  re- 
sumed the  wearing  of  their  undyed  woollen  habits,  were 
three  in  number. 

The  last  community  to  be  restored  was  that  of  the  sisters 
of  the  second  Order  of  St.  Dominic,  formerly  resident  at 
Dartford  in  Kent,  the  only  house  of  Dominicanesses  in 
England.  Out  of  nineteen  choir-sisters  pensioned  when 
their  house  was  suppressed  by  Henry  VI II's  commissioners, 
seven  still  survived,  and  they  petitioned  Queen  Mary  to 
be  allowed  to  resume  their  conventual  life.  Their  request 
was  acceded  to;  but  as  the  convent  at  Dartford  had  been 
bestowed  on  Lady  Anne  of  Cleves  for  her  life,  in  June, 
1548,  in  exchange  for  Richmond  Palace,1  the  nuns  had  to 
seek  some  other  habitation.  Cardinal  Pole,  at  Philip's  and 
Mary's  request,  erected  the  late  priory  of  King's  Langley 
into  a  convent  for  them  in  due  canonical  form,  in  June, 
1557.  On  the  death  of  the  Lady  Anne  of  Cleves,  on  1 6th  July 
following,  the  priory  of  Dartford  reverted  to  the  Crown, 
whereupon  the  King  and  Queen  were  enabled  by  grant, 
dated  8th  September,  1 558,  to  restore  the  house  to  its  former 
1  Miscell.  Bks.  of  the  Court  of  Augmentations,  vol.  219,  f.  87. 


OF  SUPREMACY  AND  UNIFORMITY       131 

occupants.  The  sisters  speedily  removed  thither  from 
King's  Langley ;  but  Mary  died  two  months  later,  and  the 
hopes  so  wonderfully  raised  were  dashed  to  the  ground.1 

The  Act  of  Elizabeth's  first  Parliament  which  gave  over 
the  possessions  of  these  newly-formed  communities  into 
the  Queen's  hands,2  as  also  the  obnoxious  Acts  of  Supremacy 
and  Uniformity,  caused  their  dispersal  once  more,  and  this 
time  finally.  II  Schifanoya,  writing  at  the  end  of  May  to 
the  Castellan  of  Mantua,3  says:  "  The  Count  [de  Feria]  de- 
parted a  fortnight  ago,  and  it  has  not  yet  been  heard  what 
present  the  Queen  made  him  at  his  departure,  saving  that 
he  asked  of  her  as  a  special  favour,  instead  of  gifts,  a  pass- 
port for  passage  to  Fianders  of  all  the  monks,  friars,  and 
nuns  now  here,  who  were  required  to  renounce  their  pro- 
fession, swear  against  the  Pope,  and  observe  the  articles 
lately  enacted  against  the  Christian  and  Catholic  Church, 
besides  being  expelled  and  driven  out  of  their  monasteries 
and  convents,  had  they  been  men  to  consent  to  this;  but 
they  had  determined  to  die  rather  than  change  their  pur- 
pose." A  week  later  II  Schifanoya  informed  his  Mantuan 
correspondent  about  Bishop  Bonner's  troubles,  and  that  he 
had  taken  sanctuary  in  Westminster  Abbey;  but  he  added 
that  "  the  abbey  cannot  last  long."  Feckenham  was  too 
influential  a  personage  to  be  left  unassailed.  He  had  been 
submitted  to  an  ordeal  like  to  that  Bonner  had  undergone, 
and  had  "  made  a  similar  reply,  when  it  was  offered  to  him 
to  remain  securely  in  his  abbey  with  his  habit,  and  the 
monks  to  live  together  as  they  have  done  till  now,  provided 
that  he  would  celebrate  in  his  church  the  divine  offices  and 
Mass,  administering  the  Sacraments  in  the  same  manner 
as  in  the  other  churches  of  London,  and  that  he  would  take 
the  oath  like  the  other  servants,  officials,  pensioners,  and 

1  Cf.  Rev.  C.  F.  Raymund  Palmer's  Obituary  Notices  of  the  Friars 
Preachers  .  .  .  of  the  English  Province,  p.  1 ;  Life  of  Card.  Howard, 
pp.  69,  sqq. ;  Notes  of  the  Priory  of  Da7'tford,  Kent,  p.  3 ;  History  of 
the  Priory  of  Dartford,  p.  29. 

a  1  Eliz.,  c.  24. 

3   Venetian  Papers,  No.  77,  30th  May,  1559. 


132     THE  CLERGY  AND  THE  ACTS 

dependents  of  the  Crown,  and  acknowledge  this  establish- 
ment as  from  the  hands  of  her  Majesty.  To  these  things 
the  Abbot  would  by  no  means  consent;  so  after  St.  John's 
day,  the  term  fixed  by  Parliament  for  all  persons  to  con- 
sent and  swear  to  all  the  statutes  and  laws,  or  to  lose  what 
they  have,  all  of  them  will  go  about  their  business,  though 
no  one  can  leave  the  kingdom.  The  Count  de  Feria  had 
obtained  permission  to  take  to  Flanders  all  the  religious. 
Since  his  departure  this  concession  has  been  limited  to 
those  who  were  in  being  at  the  time  of  the  other  schism, 
and  who  are  very  few  in  number."  *  Paulo  Tiepolo  wrote  in 
precisely  the  same  sense  to  the  Doge  of  Venice.2 

This  offer  of  promotion,  or  rather  of  freedom  from  moles- 
tation as  a  reward  for  conforming,  has  been  called  in  ques- 
tion as  intrinsically  improbable,  nor  does  it  occur  in  any 
official  document.  Hence  it  has  been  dismissed  as  due  to 
exaggeration  on  the  part  of  the  writer,  or  to  misunder- 
standing of  our  insular  methods  on  the  part  of  a  foreigner. 
But  as  will  be  shown  further  on,  this  alleged  instance  tallies 
exactly  with  the  offers  which,  as  he  himself  has  left  on 
record,  were  made  to  Fr.  Hargrave.  Hence  in  this  case  too, 
it  may  well  be  that  II  Schifanoya  stated  what  he  knew 
absolutely  as  an  actual  occurrence  of  which  he  had  accu- 
rate cognisance. 

On  27th  June  II  Schifanoya,  after  mentioning  the  de- 
privation of  some  of  the  bishops  which  followed  on  their 
refusal  to  take  the  oath  of  Supremacy,  proceeded  to  say 
that  "  the  Abbot  of  Westminster  with  all  his  monks  did 
the  like,  and  are  therefore  now  deprived  of  the  revenues  of 
the  monastery  and  of  all  the  rest  of  their  property.  We 
have  no  longer  Masses  anywhere  except  in  the  houses  of 
the  French  and  Spanish  Ambassadors.  All  the  friars  and 
monks  of  every  sort  having  received  their  passport,  some 
of  them  have  gone  away,  and  will  be  followed  by  the 
others,  although  the  Carthusians  do  not  choose  to  depart 
till  they  are  compelled  to  do  so  by  force,  which  will  soon 

1   Venetian  Papers,  No.  78,  6th  June,  1559. 

3  Ibid.,  No.  79,  nth  June,  1559;  No.  81,  16th  June,  1559. 


OF  SUPREMACY  AND  UNIFORMITY       133 

be  used."1  The  "some"  referred  to  clearly  indicates  the 
Franciscans  who,  according  to  Machyn,  left  Greenwich  on 
1 2th  June.  Sander  says  that  they  were  dispersed  in  exile 
in  Lower  Germany. 

The  process  of  disbanding  the  Dominican  communities 
has  fortunately  been  preserved  in  the  account  of  it  by  one 
of  the  actual  victims;  it  is  a  valuable  document,  since  it 
adumbrates  the  methods  adopted  in  the  other  cases.  Fr. 
Hargrave,  himself  a  Dominican,  and  confessor  to  the  nuns 
at  Dartford,  says  that  the  three  Visitors  appointed  for  that 
house  were  members  of  the  Privy  Council,  and  that  their 
commission  under  the  Great  Seal  authorised  them  to  pro- 
ceed with  the  suppression  of  the  newly-erected  religious 
houses,  and  to  disperse  the  inmates.  It  is  clear  that  this 
commission  was  subsequent  to  the  departure  of  the  Fran- 
ciscans on  1 2th  June.  The  Visitors  arrived  at  Dartford 
early  in  July,  and  summoning  Fr.  Hargrave  and  a  fellow 
friar  to  their  presence,  "  tendered  the  oath  and  Book  [of 
Common  Prayer]  and  promised  great  dignities  and  favours 
if  they  would  leave  the  Order,  and  conform  to  what  was 
required  of  them."  Both  were,  however,  proof  against  their 
temptations  and  inducements;  but  the  nature  of  the  offer, 
thus  vouched  for  by  one  of  these  to  whom  it  was  made, 
corroborates  the  statement  of  II  Schifanoya  that  similar 
inducements  were  held  out  to  Abbot  Feckenham  and  his 
Benedictine  monks.  The  nuns  were  then  called  before  the 
Visitors  singly  and  urged  to  yield  obedience,  but  one  and 
all  refused.  Thereupon  the  convent  possessions  were  valued 
and  sold  at  nominal  prices;  with  the  sum  realised  the 
debts  of  the  house  were  paid,  and  the  scanty  balance  was 
divided  between  the  nuns.  The  Visitors  were  careful,  how- 
ever, to  take  away  with  them  the  sign  of  the  corporate  ex- 
istence of  the  community,  its  common  Seal,  as  also  the 
patents  of  revenues  or  title-deeds.  The  religious  were  then 
ordered  to  quit  their  home  within  twenty-four  hours.  This 
they  perforce  did,  taking  with  them  their  books  and  best 
clothing.  Four  days  later,  in  company  with  the  nuns  of 
1    Venetian  Papers,  No.  82. 


134  THE  CLERGY  AND  THE  ACTS 

Syon  they  embarked  in  a  vessel  prepared  for  them  at  King 
Philip's  expense,  and  crossed  over  to  the  Low  Countries. 
Machyn  says:  "The  iiij  [xiii]  day  of  July,  the  Thursday,1 
the  priests  and  nuns  of  Syon  went  away,  and  the  Charter- 
house." This  furnishes  approximately  the  date  for  the 
Dartford  disbandment,  more  especially  as  Machyn  records 
that  the  Smithfield  Dominicans  were  sent  adrift  on  13th 
July.  The  Dartford  Dominicans  were  twelve  in  number, 
consisting  of  the  two  priests,  five  choir-nuns,  four  lay  sis- 
ters and  a  postulant.  The  nuns  were  all  advanced  in  years, 
the  youngest  being  fifty,  and  three  being  over  eighty  years 
of  age.  One  of  these  latter,  Elizabeth  Wright,  was  half- 
sister  to  Blessed  John  Fisher,  the  Cardinal  and  martyred 
Bishop  of  Rochester.  It  was  to  her  that  the  saintly  prelate 
dedicated  his  Spiritual  Consolation,  a  treatise  written  while 
he  was  a  prisoner  in  the  Tower.  The  nuns  kept  together  in 
the  Low  Countries;  but  Time  did  its  work,  and  in  1574 
the  three  surviving  members  of  this  English  community 
were  charitably  admitted  into  a  foreign  house  of  their 
Order;  and  on  their  death,  not  long  after,  the  ancient 
English  Province  of  the  Dominican  Order  became  ex- 
tinct. 

As  Machyn  stated,  the  Carthusians  escaped  from  Eng- 
land together  with  the  nuns,  after  being  despoiled  of  home 
and  goods.  They  maintained  a  corporate  existence  in  the 
Low  Countries  till  past  the  middle  of  the  eighteenth  cen- 
tury, when  the  last  survivor  of  this  interesting  community 
died.  The  nuns  of  Syon  kept  together  through  many  wan- 
derings in  Zealand  and  Brabant,  and  then  effected  a  settle- 
ment in  Lisbon,  whence  they  migrated  once  more,  in  1861, 
no  longer  into  exile,  but  home  to  England.  Their  present 
establishment  is  at  Chudleigh  in  Devonshire.  A  peculiar 
pathos  and  interest  centre  in  this  community,  being  the 
sole  one  existing  in  England  to-day,  which  in  its  corporate 

1  So  in  the  edition  published  by  the  Camden  Society.  But  in  the 
year  1559  Thursdays  fell  on  the  6th  and  13th;  the  editors  have  there- 
fore read  an  "x"  as  "i";  the  latter  date,  the  13th  (xiii)  would  there- 
fore be  the  correct  one. 


OF  SUPREMACY  AND  UNIFORMITY       135 

capacity  can  trace  an  unbroken  descent  from  pre-Reforma- 
tion  times,  and  will  soon  be  celebrating  the  quincentenary 
of  its  foundation  by  King  Henry  V. 

Amongst  the  Cotton  MSS.  at  the  British  Museum  is  a 
document '  relating  to  these  exiled  communities,  as  also  to 
other  persons,  lay  and  clerical,  living  abroad  on  account  of 
their  religion.  Its  probable  date  is  1570;  but,  by  internal 
evidence,  certainly  not  earlier  than  1568.  It  was  drawn  up 
by  Sir  Francis  Englefield,  himself  an  exile  for  conscience' 
sake,  its  purpose  being  to  furnish  a  detailed  list  of  the 
King  of  Spain's  pensions  to  these  exiles  for  religion.  From 
this  list  we  learn  that  Philip  allowed  1,120  florins  yearly 
"  to  the  Convent  of  Carthusians,  being  24  persons  in  num- 
ber"; a  like  sum  "to  the  nuns  of  Syon,  being  26  in  num- 
ber"; and  360  florins  "to  the  nuns  of  Dertforde,  being  8 
in  number."  From  another  paper  in  this  collection  it  ap- 
pears that  the  Carthusians  and  Dominicanesses  had  found 
a  temporary  refuge  in  Bruges,  while  the  Bridgettines  of 
Syon  were  at  that  date  in  "  Myssagen  by  Antwerp."  To 
this  place  they  had  moved  in  1568,  remaining  there  for 
between  three  and  four  years. 

The  Benedictines  at  Westminster  Abbey  did  not  fare  so 
well  as  the  other  dispersed  communities.  Machyn  records 
without  giving  a  date  for  the  event,  that  "  the  Abbot  of 
Westminster  and  the  monks  was  '  reprevyd.'  "  He  evidently 
meant  "  deprived,"  and  merely  voiced  Parkhurst's  intelli- 
gent anticipation  of  events,  when,  writing  to  Bullinger  on 
2 1  st  May,  1559,  he  informed  him  that  "  the  monasteries  will 
be  dissolved  in  a  short  time."  2 

No  records  concerning  individual  members  of  Fecken- 
ham's  community  are  known  to  exist.  None  of  them  has 
been  traced  abroad :  none  of  them  is  known  for  certain  to 
have  conformed  or  to  have  accepted  livings  under  the  new 
Establishment;  but  prison  lists  drawn  up  during  the  next 
few  years  reveal  the  fact  that  more  than  one  monk  pre- 
ferred to  follow  Feckenham's  example,  and  endured  im- 
prisonment rather  than  deny  their  profession  and  their 
1  Vesp.  C.  xiii,  No.  108.  a  I  Zur.,  p.  30,  No.  12. 


136  THE  CLERGY  AND  THE  ACTS 

creed.  Others,  thrown  back  into  the  world,  are  met  with 
here  and  there  in  stray  notices,  and  they  are  represented  as 
living  obscurely,  teaching,  or  saying  Mass  in  secret.  The 
younger  members  and  the  novices  no  doubt  resumed  lay 
life.  The  ancient  English  branch  of  the  great  Benedictine 
Order,  so  bound  up  with  the  history  of  the  country,  was  in 
danger  of  extinction,  like  so  many  other  of  the  Orders  that 
were  formerly  represented  here;  this  fate  was  averted  in  a 
singular  manner.  Sigebert  Buckley  was  one  of  the  monks 
professed  at  Westminster  by  Abbot  Feckenham.  He,  like 
his  superior,  preferred  prison  to  denial  of  his  allegiance  to 
the  Pope.  In  prison  he  remained  throughout  Elizabeth's 
long  reign  of  forty-four  years ;  and,  almost  a  centenarian, 
revived  the  ancient  English  Congregation  of  which  he  was 
then  the  sole  known  survivor  and  representative,  in  the 
early  years  of  the  reign  of  James  I.  All  the  honours,  dig- 
nities and  privileges  which,  by  devolution,  were  accumu- 
lated and  centred  in  his  venerable  and  enfeebled  person,  he 
passed  on  to  certain  secular  priests  who  sought  the  re- 
ligious habit  at  his  hands;  and  in  aggregating  them  to 
himself  he  was  the  means  of  reviving  and  perpetuating  the 
English  Benedictines,  a  body  which  is  to-day  both  numer- 
ous and  flourishing. 

The  monks  and  nuns  had  been  summarily  dealt  with. 
The  turn  of  the  secular  clergy  had  now  come.  They  had 
spoken  with  no  uncertain  voice  through  Convocation  during 
the  previous  January  and  February.  It  was  clear  that  their 
desire  was  for  a  continuance  of  the  ancient  union  with,  and 
submission  to,  Rome;  and  they  had,  by  means  of  the  Pro- 
test presented  to  Parliament,  proclaimed  their  faith  in 
certain  impugned  articles  of  belief  with  a  unanimity  which, 
at  that  time,  was  beyond  question.  How  came  it,  then,  that 
so  complete  a  downfall  was  witnessed  within  the  next  few 
years?  Many  reasons  may  be  found  which  will  account,  at 
least  partially,  for  such  downfall  as  there  was ;  but,  as  will 
be  seen  later,  lamentable  as  it  undoubtedly  was,  that 
downfall  was  neither  so  sudden  nor  so  entire  as  it  has  been 
the  fashion  to  assume  and  to  proclaim. 


OF  SUPREMACY  AND  UNIFORMITY       137 

It  has  been  customary,  for  instance,  beginning  with 
Camden,  to  taunt  bishops  and  clergy  alike  with  inconsist- 
ency because  in  Elizabeth's  reign  they  refused  to  do  what 
they  had  not  boggled  at  under  Henry  VIII.  Thus,  Tunstall, 
the  aged  Bishop  of  Durham,  who  had  subscribed  to  Henry's 
Supremacy,  would  have  none  of  it  when  Elizabeth  was  in 
question.  This  change  in  his  attitude  should  surely  not  be 
called  inconsistency,  but  is  rather  the  result  of  a  fuller  per- 
ception of  the  theological  points  involved.  Tunstall  does 
not  stand  alone,  but  may  be  taken  as  a  type.  The  situation 
which  men  had  had  to  face,  when  Henry  VIII  threw  off  the 
yoke  of  Rome  and  proclaimed  himself  Supreme  Head  of 
the  Church  of  England,  was  so  unprecedented  and  novel  in 
all  men's  experience,  that  they  might  readily  be  pardoned 
if  they  did  not,  at  once,  grasp  the  full  meaning  and  bearing 
of  the  oaths  they  were  called  upon  to  take,  with  the  added 
terror,  be  it  borne  in  mind,  of  a  knife  held  to  their  throats 
by  a  brutal  and  unsparing  tyrant,  to  hasten  and  compel 
compliance.  Such  methods  are  not  conducive  either  to 
clear  or  dispassionate  thinking.  Issues  are  apt  to  be 
confused  and  the  line  of  least  resistance  is  sought.  But  the 
lapse  of  years  brought  with  them  leisure  to  realise  the  con- 
sequences, to  grasp  the  logical  outcome  of  acts  whose  incid- 
ence and  significance  they  had  at  the  time  but  dimly  appre- 
ciated, if,  indeed,  they  had  appreciated  them  at  all.  Hence, 
when  through  further  enlightenment,  the  realities  had  been 
perceived ;  when,  too,  they  had  repaired,  as  far  as  was  in 
their  power,  the  error  and  weakness  of  the  past  by  a  dutiful 
and  whole-hearted  submission  to  Rome  during  Mary's 
reign,  it  was  the  remembrance  of  the  past  which  made 
them,  not  inconsistent,  but  determined  to  hold  themselves 
guiltless  of  any  repetition  of  their  former  weakness,  which 
they  could  atone  for  only  by  more  strenuous  opposition 
when  they  were  confronted  with  this  fresh  but  similar  trial 
of  their  constancy.  Hence  the  attitude  of  the  recalcitrant 
in  Elizabeth's  reign.  Extenuating  circumstances  may  be 
found,  not,  indeed,  to  justify,  but  to  explain  the  conduct  of 
those  who  bowed  to  fate  and,  accepting  the  legislation  of 


138     THE  CLERGY  AND  THE  ACTS 

1 559»  conformed,  perhaps  for  a  second  time  in  their  lives, 
to  national  religion  and  ideals  as  opposed  to  those  of  the 
Church  Universal. 

In  the  first  place,  some  allowance  must  be  made  for 
human  nature.  Few  of  us  are  moulded  of  the  stuff  from 
which  martyrs  are  made.  Less  robust  natures  seek  comfort 
in  a  middle  term  and  salve  their  consciences  with  com- 
promise. The  martyrs  are  like  the  sturdy  oaks  which  either 
stand  the  storm  unmoved,  or  are  shivered  in  their  resistance 
to  the  elemental  forces.  Ordinary  mortals  resemble  the  reeds 
which  bend  before  the  blast ;  and,  as  a  result  of  their  very 
weakness,  are  found  where  they  were,  unhurt,  when  the 
tempest  has  subsided.  But  our  admiration  is  for  the  oak, 
not  for  the  reed.  Again,  the  changes  in  belief  and  religious 
practice  which  had  been  witnessed  within  one  generation — 
therefore  within  the  memory  of  persons  of  middle  age  in 
the  year  1559 — had  been  frequent  in  number  and  had  suc- 
ceeded each  other  at  close  intervals  of  time.  They  could 
not  but  have  proved  bewildering  to  persons  of  less  than 
extraordinary  intelligence;  hence  men  were  so  confused  as 
hardly  to  know  what  to  think,  and  consequently  what  to 
do  for  the  best,  both  from  a  worldly  and  a  spiritual  point 
of  view.  Some  of  the  changes,  too,  affected  matters,  not  of 
doctrine,  but  merely  of  discipline,  as  the  celibacy  of  the 
clergy,  Communion  under  one  kind,  and  the  use  of  Latin 
in  the  Liturgy.  The  substitution  of  a  married  priest- 
hood, of  Communion  under  both  kinds,  and  of  a  ver- 
nacular Liturgy,  while  they  might  be  far-reaching  in 
their  effects,  and  might  shock  the  sense  of  those  who 
clung  not  unnaturally  to  the  ancient  ideals  of  submis- 
sion to  a  central  authority  which  they  accepted  as  divinely 
established,  nevertheless  did  not  in  their  essence  imply  a 
breach  with  Rome.  It  was  perfectly  thinkable  that,  for 
sufficient  and  wise  reasons,  a  Pope  might  motu  proprio 
sanction  such  changes,  or  that  a  General  Council,  such  as 
that  still  in  session  at  Trent,  might  do  so.  The  acrimoni- 
ous disputes  of  Calvinists  and  Zwinglians  about  Transub- 
stantiation,  or  the  mode  of  Christ's  presence  in  the  Sacri- 


OF  SUPREMACY  AND  UNIFORMITY       139 

fice  of  the  Mass,  or  of  the  Last  Supper,  were  above  the 
comprehension  of  ordinary  men  ;  they  might  argue  that  it 
would  be  time  enough  to  consider  such  abstruse  questions 
when  the  various  Schools  of  the  innovators  had  settled 
amongst  themselves  some  platform  of  mutual  agreement. 
Both  discipline  and  doctrine  were,  therefore,  to  some  extent 
at  least,  in  a  state  of  fluxion ;  and  men  might  be  pardoned 
if,  in  the  perplexity  engendered  by  such  constant  theologi- 
cal wrangling,  they  held  their  judgment  in  suspense,  or 
leaned  this  way  or  that,  as  here  or  there  they  seemed  to 
perceive  some  respite  from  the  war  of  controversy,  some 
breathing-space  from  the  buffets  of  doubt  and  debate,  nay, 
even  of  coercion. 

Many  of  the  clergy,  too,  who  were  buried  in  their  country 
cures,  and  had  little  converse  with  the  outer  world  (and  this 
applies  still  more  to  their  parishioners),  were  unlikely  to  be 
well  acquainted  with  the  latest  phases  of  the  many  con- 
troversies which  were  then  disturbing  men's  minds  in  the 
busier  haunts  of  cities;  hence  they  could  rarely  have  had 
the  chance  of  understanding  the  true  purport  of  the  oaths 
they  were  suddenly  called  upon  to  take,  and  may  thus  have 
set  their  names  to  any  form  of  subscription  presented  to 
them  with  no  very  accurate  perception  of  the  gravity  or 
consequences  of  their  act.  Many  of  these  parish  clergy, 
who  thus  subscribed,  were  known  to  their  Elizabethan 
bishops  as  being  merely  outward  conformists;  and,  as 
episcopal  Injunctions  record,  were  quietly  "waiting  for  a 
day,"  expecting  the  next  turn  in  the  wheel  of  fortune,  when 
Catholicism  would  again  be  uppermost.  How  they  came  to 
reconcile  such  an  attitude  with  their  consciences  it  is  not 
for  us  to  enquire.  It  is  enough  for  present  purposes  merely 
to  record  the  fact. 

Under  these  circumstances  it  becomes  necessary  to 
follow  the  course  of  events  by  which  a  bold  and  aggressive 
minority  succeeded  in  imposing  its  will  upon  a  majority 
which,  had  it  possessed  leaders  equal  to  the  occasion, 
might  have  succeeded  in  retaining  the  old  Faith.  Such 
leaders  as  the  bishops,  who  had  shown  a  fearless  front,  and 


140  THE  CLERGY  AND  THE  ACTS 

might  have  been  able  to  fight  for  the  preservation  of  the 
old  order,  were  removed;  the  flock,  scattered,  divided,  left 
to  their  individual  resources,  and  individually  confronted, 
succumbed.  This  is  the  true  explanation:  the  only  one 
that  can  reasonably  account  for  facts  otherwise  wholly 
unaccountable. 

The  situation  created  by  the  passing  of  the  Acts  of 
Supremacy  and  Uniformity  found  the  clergy  unresponsive. 
On  20th  May,  Cox  reported  to  Weidner  that  "  the  whole 
body  [of  the  clergy]  remain  unmoved;"1  and  that  while 
"many  of  the  nobility,  and  vast  numbers  of  the  people" 
were  ranging  themselves  on  the  side  of  the  reformers,  "  of 
the  clergy  none  at  all."2  At  that  very  date,  too,  Jewel  told 
Bullinger  that  the  reformers  were  meeting  with  opposition, 
"  for  we  have  at  this  time  not  only  to  contend  with  our 
adversaries,  but  even  with  those  of  our  friends  who,  of  late 
years,  have  fallen  away  from  us,  and  gone  over  to  the 
opposite  party;  and  who  are  now  opposing  us  with  a  bitter- 
ness and  obstinacy  far  exceeding  that  of  any  common 
enemy."3  Edmund  Grindal,  writing  to  Conrad  Hubert,  told 
him  that  "it  is  therefore  commonly  supposed  that  .  .  .  many 
other  beneficed  persons  will  renounce  .  .  .  their  functions,  as 
being  ashamed  after  so  much  tyranny  and  cruelty  exer- 
cised under  the  banners  of  the  Pope,  and  the  obedience  so 
lately  sworn  to  him,  to  be  again  brought  to  a  recantation, 
and  convicted  of  manifest  perjury."4 

The  only  practicable  method  of  dealing  with  the  situ- 
ation as  thus  revealed  was  by  a  general  visitation  of  the 
entire  country.  Such  a  visitation  was  accordingly  ordered ; 
the  commissioners  appointed  to  carry  it  out  were  carefully 
selected  from  men  of  whose  adherence  to  the  principles  of 
the  Reformation  the  Council  were  sure;  and  they  were  thus 
able  to  overawe  and  coerce  the  simple  parish  clergy  sum- 
moned singly  before  them. 

The  royal  Letters  Patent  directing  the  holding  of  the 

1  I  Zur.,  p.  27,  No.  11.  2  Ibid. 

3  1  Zur.,  p.  32,  No.  14,  22nd  May,  1559. 
*  II  Z#r.,  p.  19,  No.  8,  23rd  May,  1559. 


OF  SUPREMACY  AND  UNIFORMITY       141 

visitation  of  the  Northern  Province,  and  appointing  the 
commisioners  to  carry  it  out,  may  be  seen  in  the  com- 
mencement of  the  official  report  thereof,  now  forming 
vol.  x  of  P.R.O.  Dom.  Eliz. ;  but  neither  these,  nor  those 
for  the  Southern  Province,  are  enrolled  on  the  Patent  Rolls. 
The  terms  of  both  are,  however,  sure  to  have  been  practically 
identical,  but  directed  of  course  to  different  sets  of  com- 
missioners. The  Letters  for  the  Northern  visitation  were 
issued  on  24th  June,  1559,  the  very  day  on  which  the  Act 
of  Uniformity  came  into  force.  It  may  be  assumed  that 
the  Letters  for  the  Southern  Province  were  of  the  same  date. 
We  do  not  now  possess  any  formal  record,  such  as  that  for 
the  Province  of  York,  of  the  visitation  that  was  carried  out 
in  that  of  Canterbury;  but  lists  of  signatories  and  other 
documents  afford  conclusive  proof  that  it  undoubtedly 
took  place. 

From  the  neatly-written  volume  now  lying  at  the  Record 
Office '  may  be  learnt  not  only  the  names  of  the  Visitors, 
but  also  the  terms  and  limits  of  their  powers.2  The  follow- 
ing directions  are  significant :  ".  .  .  We  .  .  .  have  appointed 
[commissioners]  to  visit  .  .  .  criminous  [clerks]  and  those 
obstinately  and  peremptorily  refusing  to  subscribe  the  form 
of  religion  accepted,  or  in  any  other  way  offending  or 
blameworthy;  and  with  befitting  penalties,  even  to  the 
deprivation  of  the  fruits  or  revenues  of  their  benefices, 
dignities  or  offices,  and  the  sequestration  of  the  products 
of  the  churches  or  places  over  which  they  rule,  or  to  be 
punished  and  corrected  by  any  other  fitting  and  sufficient 
coercion  inclusively  .  .  .  and  to  decree  and  declare  the 
churches  and  other  places  of  the  [?  incumbent]  vacant,  and 
to  hold  and  have  them  vacant;  and  to  assign  and  limit 
legitimate  fitting  and  sufficient  pensions  to  those  who  shall 
cede  or  resign  the  like,"  etc. 

"Articles  of  Enquiry"3  and  also  some  "  Royal  Injunc- 

1  P.R.O.  Dom.  Eliz.,  vol.  x. 

-  The  full  text  of  the  Letters  containing  them  may  be  consulted  in 
print  in  Cardwell's  Documentary  Annals,  i,  pp.  219,  sqq. 
3  Cf.  Cardwell's  D.  A.,  i,  p.  41. 


i42  THE  CLERGY  AND  THE  ACTS 

tions  "  were  prepared  as  further  guidance  for  the  Visitors. 
A  comparison  of  the  Elizabethan  Injunctions  with  those 
issued  by  Edward  VI  in  1547  makes  it  clear  that  the  earlier 
document  furnished  the  model  on  which  the  later  one  was 
framed;  but  the  Injunctions  of  1559  were  an  amplified  and 
enlarged  edition  of  those  of  1547.  They  consisted  of  fifty- 
three  articles  and  an  Appendix  explaining  the  scope  of  the 
Act  of  Supremacy  for  the  relief  of  mind  of  those  who  "  find 
some  scruple  in  the  form  "  thereof.  The  first  twenty-eight 
are  almost  identical  with  those  of  1547;  from  that  point 
onward  they  are  either  embodiments  of  later  regulations  or 
are  entirely  new.  They  enjoined  on  all  ecclesiastical  persons 
to  accept  the  royal  Supremacy  and  to  preach  against  all 
usurped  and  foreign  power,  also  against  images,  relics, 
miracles  and  suchlike  superstitions;  upholders  of  papal 
Supremacy  were  to  be  denounced;  regulations  were  laid 
down  about  Bible  reading,  proper  licensing  of  preachers, 
keeping  of  registers,  support  of  the  poor,  and  of  students 
at  the  Universities,  the  upkeep  of  chancels  and  clergy- 
houses,  the  payment  of  tithes,  the  parochial  duties  of  in- 
cumbents, the  substitution  of  Litanies  for  processions 
(except  for  "  beating  the  bounds ") ;  the  treatment  of 
notorious  sinners;  the  removal  of  shrines  and  suchlike 
"  monuments  of  feigned  miracles,  idolatry,  and  super- 
stition"; the  imposition  of  humiliating  rules  to  be  observed 
by  clergy  proposing  to  marry;  methods  of  teaching  and 
catechising,  and  so  forth.  From  this  brief  summary  it  will 
be  gathered  that  the  Injunctions  were  both  minute  enough 
and  searching  enough  to  satisfy  the  most  inquisitorial  taste. 
Armed  with  such  far-reaching  powers,  the  newly-appointed 
commissioners  were  become  for  the  time  being  the  sole 
dispensers  of  ecclesiastical  law  and  the  depositaries  of  all 
ecclesiastical  jurisdiction.  From  the  lists  of  Visitors  which 
are  extant  '  it  appears  that  the  whole  country  was  divided 
into  six  districts,  each  being  apportioned  its  separate  set  of 
Visitors;  each  of  the  Universities,  also,  had  special  provi- 
sion made  for  it  in  this  respect.  But  the  lists  as  drawn  up 
1  P.R.O.  Dom.  Eliz.,  IV,  No.  34. 


OF  SUPREMACY  AND  UNIFORMITY       143 

in  the  document  referred  to  were  evidently  tentative,  for 
they  do  not  agree,  at  least  as  regards  the  Northern  Province, 
in  all  respects  with  the  names  as  recorded  in  the  official 
report.  Possibly  they  underwent  revision.  Of  course,  all 
those  whose  names  appear  in  the  Letters  Patent  did  not 
necessarily  have  to  attend  the  sessions  of  the  visitation 
regularly;  the  terms  of  their  appointment  make  it  clear 
that  they  constituted  a  reserve  from  which  a  quorum  was 
to  be  formed.  In  fact,  more  than  one  of  those  nominated 
to  serve  could  have  been  in  no  sort  of  sympathy  with  the 
purpose  underlying  the  visitation ;  and,  of  the  fourteen  in- 
dividuals selected  to  make  the  visitation  of  the  Northern 
Province,  some  never  attended  at  all ;  others  attended  but 
seldom  ;  and,  indeed,  the  conduct  of  the  visitation  was 
confined,  practically,  to  Sir  Thomas  Gargrave,  who  was 
vice-President  of  the  Council  of  the  North;  Sir  Henry 
Gates,  a  local  knight;  Henry  Harvey,  D.D.;  and  Edwin 
Sandys,  a  reforming  divine,  soon  to  become  Bishop  of 
Worcester,  then  of  London,  and  finally  Archbishop  of  York. 
Of  these  four,  Harvey  and  Sandys  were  most  constant  in 
attendance:  they  were,  indeed,  the  moving  spirits  of  the 
visitation. 

The  record  of  the  visitation,  after  the  manner  of  such 
official  documents,  in  the  first  place  recites  the  royal 
Letters  of  Commission  bringing  the  visitation  into  being, 
appointing  the  Visitors,  and  defining  the  limits  of  their 
duties  and  powers.  This,  of  course,  may  be  taken  to  repre- 
sent the  tenor  of  the  similar  documents  issued  for  the 
South  Province,  no  one  of  which  is  known  now  to  exist. 
It  is  not  without  significance  that  it  bears  date  24th  June, 
1559,  the  very  day  that  the  Act  of  Uniformity  became 
operative. 

Then  would  come  in  due  order  the  announcement  to  the 
various  local  officials  of  the  approaching  visitation,  followed 
by  citations  to  the  clergy  of  each  district  to  meet  at  an 
appointed  centre  on  a  date  named  or  to  be  named.  In  the 
Register  of  the  Dean  and  Chapter  of  Canterbury  l  is  pre- 
1  P.  4. 


144  THE  CLERGY  AND  THE  ACTS 

served  a  letter  of  inhibition  directed  to  them,  which  first 
recites  the  terms  of  the  Commission,  and  then  relieves  the 
local  ecclesiastical  officials  of  their  jurisdiction  during  the 
holding  of  the  visitation.  This  document  was  technically 
known  as  the  Mandatum  Citatorium,  and  the  Visitors  in- 
variably enquired  as  to  whether  it  had  been  received  and 
made  known  to  all  concerned.  This  detail  is  not  without 
its  bearing  on  actual  occurrences,  for  it  makes  the  absten- 
tion of  so  many  of  the  clergy  the  more  deliberate  and 
remarkable. 

To  follow  the  working  of  this  momentous  visitation,  it 
will  be  well  to  give  in  brief  the  details  preserved  to  us  of 
the  rapid  yet  fairly  thorough  enquiry  conducted  in  the  four 
dioceses  of  York,  Chester,  Durham,  and  Carlisle,  which 
constitute  the  Northern  Province. 

The  visitation  was  opened  in  the  church  of  Our  Lady  at 
Nottingham  on  Tuesday,  22nd  August,  15  59,  before  Sandys, 
Gargrave,  Gates,  and  Harvey.  The  roll  of  all  the  clergy  of 
that  deanery  was  first  called,  those  not  answering  to  their 
names  being  declared  contumacious.  Churchwardens  were 
ordered  to  attend  at  a  given  hour  furnished  with  answers 
to  articles  of  enquiry  and  charges  against  parishioners. 
Incumbents  were  enjoined  to  produce  their  Letters  of 
Orders,  dispensations,  and  the  like.  At  the  appointed 
hour  these  papers,  as  well  as  inventories  of  church  goods, 
were  exhibited,  whereupon  the  commissioners  proceeded  to 
examine  them,  also  enquiring  into  the  doctrine  and  be- 
haviour of  the  incumbents.  The  immediate  result  of  this 
enquiry  was  that  the  church  of  Adbolton,  being  found  to  be 
without  an  incumbent,  was  sequestrated,  and  administrators 
were  appointed. 

On  Thursday,  24th  August,  Gates,  Sandys,  and  Harvey 
continued  their  work,  at  Southwell.  Wynthorpe  was  found 
destitute  of  an  incumbent  and  was  sequestrated.  Head- 
ingley  (Edinglee)  and  West  Drayton  shared  the  same  fate. 
On  25th  August  the  collegiate  church  itself  of  Southwell  was 
visited,  and  the  report  furnishes  sundry  details  about  the 
prebendaries.    Seven  appeared  by  proxy,  four  prebendaries 


OF  SUPREMACY  AND  UNIFORMITY       145 

and  four  vicars-choral  appeared  in  person,  four  were  absent 
without  offering  any  excuse,  and  of  one  no  information  was 
vouchsafed.  It  will  be  needful  to  speak  individually  of  the 
twenty  referred  to,  for  only  some  of  the  names  appear  in 
Bridgewater's  Concertatio.  Robert  Pursglove,  suffragan 
Bishop  of  Hull  and  prebendary  of  the  second  portion  of 
Oxton,  was  deprived  at  this  time.  His  name  is,  of  course, 
sufficiently  known,  and  therefore  needs  no  further  comment 
here.  It  may  be  of  interest  to  point  out  that  his  successor 
in  the  prebendal  stall,  Goddard  Kiddall,  was  also  deprived 
before  26th  March,  1563,  the  date  of  induction  of  his  suc- 
cessor.1 Whether  he  justified  himself  in  taking  the  oath  of 
Supremacy  or  not  in  1559  is  of  small  moment  beside  the 
fact  that  finally  he  could  not  reconcile  his  position  in  the 
newly  established  Church  with  his  peace  of  conscience. 
Galfrid  Downes,  prebendary  of  Palyce  Hall  in  Norwell, 
had  been  installed  as  early  as  1535,  before  Henry  VI IPs 
final  breach  with  Rome.  He  had  weathered  the  storms  of 
the  intervening  twenty-four  years  by  veering  with  every 
change  of  doctrine;  but  now  in  his  old  age  he  refused  to 
temporise  any  more,  and  was  at  once  sequestered.  There 
can  be  no  reasonable  doubt  that  the  matter  ended  in  his 
complete  deprivation.  George  Palmes,  prebendary  of  North 
Muskham,  had  been  admitted  to  that  stall  on  7th  September, 
1558,  shortly  before  Mary's  death.  He  was  definitely  de- 
prived." William  Mowse,  prebendary  of  Halloughton,  did 
not  appear  either  in  person  or  by  proxy,  but  Le  Neve  says 
nothing  about  his  subsequent  fate.  He  had  been  collated 
to  his  stall  as  recently  as  2nd  May,  1559;  his  disappearance, 
therefore,  at  this  moment  cannot  have  been  due  to  any  other 
cause  than  refusal  to  accept  the  royal  Supremacy.  He  may 
have  been  given  time  to  consider  his  position,  and  thus  did 
not  come  within  the  limit  of  the  present  report.  Henry 
Bowell,  prebendary  of  Normanton,  was  represented  by 
proxy,  but  on  his  refusal  to  subscribe  the  oaths,  he  was 
deprived.3    George  Dudley,  prebendary  of  Woodborough, 

1  Le  Neve,  Fasti,  iii,  p.  451.  2  Ibid.,  iii,  p.  430. 

3  Ibid.,  iii,  p.  425. 

L 


146  THE  CLERGY  AND  THE  ACTS 

was  a  very  old  man,  having  been  installed  at  the  remote 
date  of  1 8th  January,  1 507-8.  Notwithstanding  former  com- 
promises and  compliances,  he  now  stood  his  ground  firmly 
and  courageously,  appearing  neither  in  person  nor  by  proxy. 
As  his  successor  was  inducted  on  8th  October,  1 561,  there  can 
be  little  doubt  that,  unless  he  died  during  the  interval,  he 
suffered  deprivation.  William  Taylor,  prebendary  of  South 
Muskham,  refused  submission,  and  was  in  consequence  de- 
prived in  due  form.1  Robert  Drury,  prebendary  of  Rapton, 
made  his  personal  appearance.  His  attitude  towards  the 
royal  Supremacy  is  not  made  clear  by  the  report;  but  he 
was  succeeded  in  his  stall  as  early  as  1561.  Since  Le  Neve 
assigns  the  vacancy  to  his  death,  Drury's  case  must  remain 
indeterminate.  George  Lamb,  prebendary  of  Northleverton, 
absented  himself,  and  was  deprived.2  John  Rokesbye,  Henry 
Harvey  (one  of  the  Visitors),  Robert  Cressye,  Robert  Snell, 
and  Richard  Hopkins  accepted  the  royal  Supremacy  with- 
out any  demur.  William  Saxye,  prebendary  of  Beckenham, 
absented  himself;  but  although  his  name  is  omitted  from 
this  stall  by  Le  Neve,  it  appears  elsewhere  as  that  of  a 
Canon  of  Windsor,  which  preferment  he  held  till  his  death 
in  1566;3  hence,  whatever  scruples  he  may  have  felt  at 
the  moment  of  the  Southwell  visitation,  he  managed  to 
allay  them,  and  by  subsequent  submission  retained  his 
stall.  There  remains  Thomas  Wilson,  prebendary  of  New- 
hall  in  Norwell,  about  whose  fate  some  uncertainty  exists. 
His  successor  was  admitted  to  the  stall  in  question  on 
1 8th  July,  1562,  the  vacancy  being  ascribed  to  Wilson's  re- 
signation. Since  his  subsequent  career  has  eluded  research, 
it  must  remain  an  open  question  whether  he  enjoyed  other 
preferment  elsewhere,  or  whether,  on  reflection,  he  repudi- 
ated a  too  hasty  submission  at  the  moment  when  he  was 
facing  the  Visitors.  Four  vicars-choral  are  referred  to  in 
the  report,  but  perhaps,  as  being  minor  clergy,  their  cases 
were  not  of  sufficient  importance  to  occupy  the  attention 
of  the  Visitors;  no  record  of  their  fate  reaches  us.    Of  the 

1   Le  Neve,  Fasti,  iii,  p.  433.  2  Ibid.,  iii,  p.  427. 

3  Ibid.,  iii,  p.  396. 


OF  SUPREMACY  AND  UNIFORMITY       147 

sixteen  prebendaries,  however,  six  certainly  conformed, 
five  were  as  certainly  deprived,  while  it  is  hardly  open  to 
doubt  that  three  more  shared  the  same  fate,  leaving  two 
about  whom  definite  information  is  wanting;  such  as  we 
have,  pointing  perhaps  rather  towards  conformity  than  to 
recalcitrance. 

When  Henry  VIII's  Visitors  were  making  their  rounds 
of  the  monasteries,  the  characteristic  note  of  their  proceed- 
ings was  the  extraordinary  rapidity  with  which  their  in- 
vestigations were  conducted,  entirely  militating  against  the 
possibility  or  probability  of  a  fair  and  full  enquiry.  The 
itinerary  and  horarium  of  Elizabeth's  Visitors,  while  not 
open  to  this  objection  to  the  same  extent,  was  nevertheless 
carried  out  with  such  speed  that  it  is  difficult  to  with- 
stand the  impression  that  their  work  must  have  been 
rushed ;  indeed,  with  the  enormous  mass  of  business  con- 
fronting the  commissioners,  it  could  hardly  have  been 
otherwise ;  and  instances  are  not  wanting  of  the  appoint- 
ment of  deputies  to  go  on  with  enquiries  which  the  Visitors 
themselves  had  initiated,  but  which,  no  doubt  in  order  to 
keep  a  fixed  appointment  elsewhere  and  not  to  get  behind- 
hand with  their  time-table,  they  were  forced  to  leave 
unfinished. 

Gates,  Sandys,  and  Harvey  were  at  Blythe  on  26th 
August,  where,  amongst  other  matter,  a  matrimonial  suit 
engaged  their  attention,  as  also  a  couple  of  ecclesiastical 
cases  of  minor  importance.  Thence  they  proceeded  to 
Pontefract  where,  on  28th  August,  and  again  at  Halifax  on 
31st  August  similar  cases  were  gone  into.  On  4th  Septem- 
ber the  same  trio  opened  their  enquiry  at  Otley,  where  they 
had  before  them  several  incumbents  who  proved  obstinate, 
necessitating  their  dealing  roundly  with  them.  William 
Boyes,  parson  of  Gresley  "  ut  susceptae  religioni  subscribat 
expresse  et  obstinate  recusavit" — so  runs  the  record ;  in  con- 
sequence of  which  he  suffered  sequestration,  and  was 
bound  over  in  £  500  to  appear  at  a  later  date  before  the 
commissioners  in  London.  His  example  was  followed  by 
Robert  Wood,  vicar  of  Otley,  Christopher  Mygley,  vicar  of 


148  THE  CLERGY  AND  THE  ACTS 

Kyldewicke,  and  Alexander  Jennynges,  vicar  of  Bingley, 
who  one  and  all,  moreover,  denied  the  Queen's  Supremacy. 
For  this  contumacy  they  were  remanded  in  custody,  to  be 
brought  before  the  Visitors  again  two  days  later  in  York. 

The  work  of  the  royal  commissioners  at  York  was  natur- 
ally very  heavy  since  it  was  crowded  into  four  days,  and 
fell  upon  the  indefatigable  Sandys,  Harvey,  Gates,  and 
Gargrave.  On  6th  September  the  session  took  place  in  the 
metropolitan  Chapter  House.  After  the  transaction  of  the 
formal  business  usual  on  such  occasions,  the  registrar  read 
out  "  distincte  "  the  articles  of  the  new  religion  as  by  law 
just  established.  The  oaths  were  then  tendered  to  John 
Rokeby  who  "  bono  spiritu  ductus,  ut  pauci  arbitrantur, 
voluntarie  subscripsit."  The  form  of  subscription  appended 
in  the  report  was  collective  in  its  terms  and  received  the 
signatures  of  those  willing  to  conform  to  the  "  suscepta 
religio"  "  We,  the  clergy  of  the  Cathedral  and  Metro- 
political  Church  of  York,  whose  names  are  subscribed," — so 
runs  the  document,  "  do  humbly  confess  and  acknowledge 
the  restoring  again  of  the  ancient  jurisdiction  over  the  state 
ecclesiastical  and  spiritual  to  the  Crown  of  this  Realm;  and 
the  abolishing  of  all  foreign  power  repugnant  to  the  same 
according  to  an  [Act]  thereof  made  in  the  late  Parliament, 
begun  at  Westminster  the  23rd  [or  rather  25th]  day  of 
January  in  the  first  year  of  the  reign  of  our  Sovereign 
Lady  Queen  Elizabeth,  and  there  continued  and  kept  until 
the  8th  day  of  May  next  after  ensuing.  We  confess  also  and 
acknowledge  the  administration  of  the  Sacraments,  the  use 
and  order  of  divine  service  in  manner  and  form  as  it  is  set 
forth  in  the  Book  commonly  called  the  Book  of  Common 
Prayer,  etc.,  established  also  by  the  same  Act,  and  the 
orders  and  rules  contained  in  the  Injunctions  given  by  the 
Queen's  Majesty,  and  exhibited  unto  us  in  this  present 
visitation,  to  be  according  to  the  true  Word  of  God,  and 
agreeable  to  the  doctrine  and  use  of  the  primitive  Church. 
In  witnesses  whereof  and  that  the  premisses  be  true,  we 
have  unfeignedly  hereunto  subscribed  our  names." 

It  is  much  to  the  purpose  to  observe  that  those  who 


OF  SUPREMACY  AND  UNIFORMITY       149 

signed  this  formula  gave  their  adhesion  not  only  to  the 
oaths  of  Supremacy  and  Uniformity  with  whose  terms 
they  had  had  opportunities  of  becoming  acquainted  during 
the  previous  four  months  or  thereabouts,  but  also  to  the 
lengthy  and  rambling  Injunctions  whose  clauses  could  only 
have  come  to  their  knowledge  then  and  there.  So  easy  an 
acceptance  of  such  a  mass  of  minute  regulations  affecting 
them  in  every  relation  of  life  argues  neither  a  high  order 
of  conscientiousness  nor  an  adequate  sense  of  responsibility 
in  those  who  so  summarily  engaged  to  adapt  themselves  to 
the  new  conditions.  Even  the  brightest  intelligence  might 
be  supposed  to  require  some  little  time  wherein  to  assimi- 
late the  bearings  of  so  momentous  a  departure  from  the 
hitherto  accepted  groove  in  which  most  at  least  of  their 
lives  had  been  passed. 

It  will  be  useful  to  enquire  somewhat  closely  into  the 
information  to  be  gleaned  from  the  official  report  on  this 
visitation,  since  Mr.  Gee,  who  has  summarised  it  in  his 
book  on  The  Elizabethan  Clergy,  does  not  draw  quite  the 
same  conclusions  as  are  here  indicated.  "  Several  of  the 
York  prebendaries,"  he  writes,  "  put  in  no  appearance  at 
all,  viz.,  J.  Warren,  Archdeacon  of  Cleveland,  Alban  Lang- 
dale,  Arthur  Lowe,  J.  Seaton,  Peter  Vannes,  T.  Arden, 
Geoffrey  Morlaye,  T.  Clement,  T.  Cheston,  G.  Blithe.  Four 
only  of  these,  we  shall  find,  were  eventually  deprived." ' 
The  four  referred  to  were  Alban  Langdale,  Arthur  Lowe, 
John  Seaton,  and  Thomas  Arden.  Something,  however, 
may  here  be  said  by  way  of  supplement  concerning  the 
other  six  mentioned  in  the  foregoing  list.  Sander's  cata- 
logue of  deprived  clergy  contains  a  Clement;  but  no  Chris- 
tian name,  no  name  of  the  benefice  he  had  served,  is  fur- 
nished. Le  Neve  shows  that  Thomas  Clement  was  admitted 
to  the  prebendal  stall  of  Apesthorpe  in  May,  1554;  and 
the  next  institution  which  he  records  is  that  of  Melchior 
Smith,  in  June,  1564.2  It  is  necessary  to  utter  here  a  word 
of  caution.  Deprivation  is  the  entire  taking  away  of  all 
right  not  only  to  the  fruits  but  to  the  possession  of  a 
1  P.  78.  2  Le  Neve,  Fasti,  iii,  p.  167. 


150  THE  CLERGY  AND  THE  ACTS 

benefice,  followed  by  the  induction  of  a  successor,  just  as  if 
the  person  so  deprived  were  dead.  The  causes  of  depriva- 
tion a  beneficio,  as  given  in  Giles  Jacob's  Law  Dictionary 
{sub  voce),  are  many:  amongst  the  rest,  "if  a  clerk  be  a 
non-conformist  to  the  Canons:  if  a  parson  refuse  to  use  the 
Common  Prayer,  or  preach  in  derogation  of  it:  do  not  ad- 
minister the  Sacraments  or  read  the  Articles  of  Religion, 
etc.  .  .  .  And  refusing  to  use  the  Common  Prayer  of  the 
Church,  is  cause  of  deprivation  ipso  facto,  in  which  case  the 
Church  shall  be  void,  without  any  sentence  declaratory; 
and  avoidances  by  Act  of  Parliament  need  no  declaratory 
sentence.  .  .  ."  Jacob  then  enumerates  the  rights  of  in- 
criminated clerks,  but  concludes :  "  none  of  these  formalities 
are  required  where  the  living  is  made  ipso  facto  void."  Such 
cases  as  refusing  to  use  the  Common  Prayer  came  within 
the  limits  of  causes  punishable  by  deprivation  subsequent 
to  this  date;  but  there  remain  non-conformity  to  the 
Canons  and  parliamentary  avoidances  to  account  for  many 
instances,  otherwise  inexplicable,  of  change  of  incumbency 
at  this  period.  Sequestration,  so  far  as  it  concerns  the  cases 
under  discussion,  is  the  inhibition  of  an  incumbent  from  the 
performance  of  any  pastoral  or  ecclesiastical  function,  and 
the  confiscation  of  all  the  fruits  of  the  benefice:  but  the 
living  is  not  declared  vacant.  Usually,  an  administrator  is 
appointed  to  collect  the  fruits  of  the  benefice  and  to  apply 
them  as  he  shall  be  directed  by  the  sequestrators.  This 
duty  is  most  frequently  imposed  upon  the  churchwardens ; 
and  some  clergyman  is  appointed  to  perform  the  clerical 
duties  attached  to  the  living,  for  doing  which  he  receives  a 
salary  out  of  the  sequestered  revenues  of  the  benefice. 
Should  the  penalised  incumbent,  however,  subsequently 
purge  himself  of  his  offence,  the  sequestration  may  be  re- 
moved, and  he  would  be  entitled  and  enabled  once  more  to 
enjoy  all  the  fruits  and  emoluments  of  his  benefice,  as  he 
did  before  the  sentence  of  sequestration  was  passed  upon 
him.  But  unless  a  benefice  be  declared  vacant,  as  in  a  case 
of  deprivation,  no  other  name  will  occur  in  episcopal  and 
such-like  Registers  as  occupying  the  living,  till  after  the 


OF  SUPREMACY  AND  UNIFORMITY       151 

death  or  subsequent  deprivation  of  the  cleric  under  sen- 
tence of  sequestration.  These  explanations  and  distinctions 
have  an  important  bearing  on  the  obscure  and  complicated 
history  of  institutions  to  livings  at  this  particular  period, 
and  may  serve  to  account  for  innumerable  cases  which  are 
a  standing  puzzle  to  those  whose  researches  lead  them 
along  these  lines  of  enquiry. 

Bearing  these  cautions  in  mind,  therefore,  it  is  not  to  be 
assumed  that  because  Melchior  Smith  became  prebendary 
of  Apesthorpe  in  1564  that  Thomas  Clement  held  it  till 
then,  at  least  in  the  sense  of  enjoying  its  emoluments.  If 
he  ceased  to  perform  his  pastoral  duties  and  to  enjoy  the 
revenues  of  his  living  in  1559,  and  yet  cannot  be  shown  to 
have  received  another  benefice  in  this  or  any  other  diocese, 
then,  although  he  may  not  have  been  formally  deprived, 
he  was  either  driven  out  of  the  ministry  under  colour  of 
sequestration,  or  forced  to  abandon  it  without  process  of 
law  ("  forsaking  the  ministry  ")  with  exactly  similar  results 
so  far  as  personal  loss  for  conscience'  sake  is  implied.  Such 
seems  to  be  Clement's  case.  It  is  not,  therefore,  extra- 
vagant to  connect  the  deprived  "  —  Clement "  of  Sander's 
and  Gee's  lists  with  this  "  Thomas  Clement,"  and  to  sur- 
mise that  after  the  close  of  this  visitation,  and  the  drawing 
up  of  the  report  thereof,  he  underwent  formal  deprivation. 
Thomas  Cheston's  case  seems  to  be  identical  with  Clement's. 
George  Blithe,  prebendary  of  Tokerington,  is  not  men- 
tioned by  Le  Neve,  who  gives  William  Robinson  as  having 
been  collated  in  1545,  while  the  name  that  immediately 
follows  is  that  of  "  Anthony  Blake,  collated  circa  1 562  or 
1 563."  Warren  {or  Warner)  is  said  to  have  resigned  in  1 563 
or  1 564 :  he  was  also  Dean  of  Winchester,  and  was  de- 
prived of  that  important  preferment.  The  only  two  of 
these  ten,  therefore,  who  may  be  stated  with  any  degree 
of  certainty  to  have  conformed,  were  Peter  Vannes  and 
Geoffrey  Morlaye.  It  would  seem  that  the  idea  which  Mr. 
Gee  wishes  to  convey  to  his  readers  is  that  six  conformed. 
Two  prebendaries,  Robert  Bapthorpe  and  George  William- 
son, expressed  their  willingness  to  accept  the  Supremacy, 


152  THE  CLERGY  AND  THE  ACTS 

but  asked  to  be  given  time  for  deliberation  about  the  other 
points.  A  week's  grace  was  accorded,  at  the  expiration  of 
which  they  proved  to  be  ready  to  submit,  which  one  did 
"  voluntarie  nt  opinatur"  and  the  other  "  lib  enter?  Seven 
of  the  prebendaries — namely,  Peter  Hedd,  John  Herde, 
William  Rokeby  (already  mentioned),  Jone  Grene,  Richard 
Peter,  John  Hebden,  and  Richard  Norman,  conformed 
without  any  ado;  two,  Richard  Drury  and  Baldwin  Nor- 
ton, appear  to  have  conformed  at  first,  but  later  to  have 
reconsidered  their  decision,  and,  in  consequence,  to  have 
suffered  deprivation.  There  is  some  difficulty  in  deciding 
John  Wyatt's  case.  He  is  named  in  the  report  as  pre- 
bendary of  Stillington ;  but  Le  Neve  makes  no  mention  of 
him,  giving  Burland  as  admitted  in  August,  1558,  and  as 
succeeded  by  Atkinson  in  March,  1559-60.  Wyatt  was  not 
personally  present  at  the  visitation,  but  a  proxy  appeared 
for  him;  nothing  further,  however,  is  recorded  about  him. 
William  Taylor,  also  represented  by  proxy,  was  followed  in 
his  prebend  of  Fenton  on  10th  July,  1560,  but  the  cause  of 
voidance  is  not  mentioned.  It  is  practically  certain,  how- 
ever, as  Mr.  Gee  admits,  that  he  suffered  deprivation.  The 
same  fate  seems  to  have  befallen  William  Bell,  prebendary 
of  Tokerington,  though  his  name  does  not  find  a  place  on 
Mr.  Gee's  list  of  deprived  clergy.  Finally,  it  is  not  a  little 
surprising  that  the  name  of  Maurice  Clenock  is  not  to  be 
found  on  that  same  list.  The  report  of  the  visitation  merely 
refers  to  him  as  "  prebendary  of  the  said  church,  appeared 
by  proxy."  He  is  not  included  in  Le  Neve's  Fasti;  but  he 
is  the  same  well-known  individual  who  later  figures  in  the 
story  of  the  early  days  of  the  English  College  at  Rome.1 

The  general  result  of  the  visitation  of  York  Cathedral  in 
its  members  was  that  nine  prebendaries  conformed,  either 
straightway  or  after  short  deliberation,  while  ten  suffered 
sequestration  or  were  shortly  after  deprived.  The  re- 
mainder of  the  visitation  of  the  diocese  of  York  is  not  of 
prime  importance  for  the  purposes  of  this  investigation ; 
but  it  may  be  mentioned  that  only  a  few  of  the  clergy  put 

1  Cf.  Diet.  Nat.  Biog.,  xi,  p.  37  ;  Gillow,  Diet,  of  Cath.  Biog.,  i,  p.  501. 


OF  SUPREMACY  AND  UNIFORMITY       153 

in  an  appearance,  although  duly  summoned.  Of  those  few, 
some  may  have  submitted,  though  there  is  no  evidence  that 
such  was  the  case;  but  Henry  More,  rector  of  St.  Martin's 
in  Middlegate,  flatly  refused  to  subscribe,  and  was  subjected 
to  the  penalty  of  sequestration.  A  like  fate,  and  for  a 
similar  cause,  befell  Thomas  Jeffrison,  vicar  of  Ledes- 
ham,  and  Richard  Salvyn,  rector  of  Hinderwell,  the  latter 
being,  in  addition,  bound  over  to  appear  a  week  later 
before  the  same  Visitors  at  Durham. 

The  commissioners  then  proceeded  to  this  most  northern 
of  the  English  Sees,  where  they  were  destined  to  encounter 
a  stubborn  resistance.  It  is  worthy  of  note  that  some  of 
the  stalls  were  still  held  by  those  who  had  obtained  them 
by  the  Charter  of  Foundation;  in  other  words,  that  they 
had  been  members  of  the  former  convent  of  Benedictine 
monks.  They  had  fallen  into  schism  under  Henry:  of  this 
they  had  purged  themselves  under  Mary;  and  although, 
doubtless  by  dispensation,  they  did  not  then  return  to  their 
monastic  profession,  nevertheless,  since  they  had  learnt  by- 
sad  experience  "  that  it  is  an  evil  and  a  bitter  thing  to  have 
left  the  Lord  their  God,"1  in  this  new  hour  of  trial  they 
resolved  to  atone  for  former  subservience  by  the  sturdy 
opposition  born  of  maturer  years  and  knowledge. 

The  visitation  was  opened  at  Buckland  on  21st  Septem- 
ber, 1559;  thence  it  was  transferred  to  roomier  quarters  in 
the  episcopal  palace  at  Durham.  Dr.  Thomas  Sigewick,  in 
obedience  to  the  royal  summons,  appeared  in  person;  but, 
obstinately  refusing  the  oaths,  was  remanded  under  sureties 
till  the  25th,  when,  persisting  in  his  refusal,  he  was  form- 
ally deprived  of  his  benefice  of  Gainsford,  with  all  its 
fruits  and  emoluments.  Robert  Dalton,  vicar  of  Billingham, 
was  the  next  to  be  dealt  with  ;  and  proving  equally  obdu- 
rate, was  also  remanded  till  the  25th,  when,  far  from  sub- 
mitting, he  boldly  gave  utterance  to  sentiments  which  so 
shocked  the  registrar  of  the  visitation,  that  he  recorded  them 
in  the  vernacular,  evidently  as  being  of  prime  importance. 
Dalton  told  the  commissioners  "  that  he  believeth  that  he 
1  Jer.,  ii,  19. 


154  THE  CLERGY  AND  THE  ACTS 

who  sitteth  in  the  Seat  of  Rome  hath  and  ought  to  have 
the  jurisdiction  ecclesiastical  over  all  Christian  realms." 
As  no  argument  availed  to  move  him  from  this  position, 
his  benefices  were  then  and  there  sequestrated,  and  eventu- 
ally he  was  formally  deprived  both  of  his  prebendal  stall 
and  of  his  other  preferments.  William  Bennet  was  equally 
emphatic  in  his  refusal  of  the  oaths,  and  suffered  sequestra- 
tion as  a  consequence;  while  William  Whitehead,  vicar  of 
Heighington,  at  the  same  time  and  for  the  like  causes, 
underwent  the  same  punishment.  It  is  significant,  in  the 
case  of  these  two  last  named,  that  in  Surtees'  Durham} 
where  the  lists  of  the  incumbents  of  their  respective  livings 
are  given,  they  are  not  said  to  have  vacated  through  any 
legal  process  of  sequestration  or  deprivation — their  names 
are  simply  followed  by  those  of  their  successors,  as  if  the 
vacancy  had  been  due  to  natural  causes  some  years  subse- 
quent to  these  events.  To  anyone  who  knew  nothing  more 
than  he  might  read  in  Surtees'  lists,  the  natural  inference 
to  draw  would  be  that  they  conformed  on  further  considera- 
tion ;  thus  William  Bennet  was  succeeded  by  a  Robert 
Throckmorton  as  late  as  1584;  William  Whitehead  was 
replaced  only  in  1576  by  William  Hardinge:  in  this  in- 
stance the  cause  of  voidance  is  actually  stated  to  be  the 
death  of  Whitehead.  The  explanation  would  seem  to  be 
that  the  livings  were  only  sequestrated,  and  so  continued 
till  the  death  of  the  defaulting  incumbents;  but  only  a 
true  knowledge  of  the  facts  can  enable  a  right  interpreta- 
tion to  be  put  on  what  actually  took  place.  Meanwhile, 
Bennet  and  Whitehead,  though  nominally  incumbents  till 
1584  and  1576  respectively,  were  ejected  from  their  livings 
and  receiving  none  of  their  fruits  and  emoluments — a  por- 
tion going  to  the  curates  in  charge,  the  residue  accruing  to 
the  Crown.  These  two  instances  may  be  taken  as  prob- 
ably typical  of  hundreds  of  others  throughout  the  length 
and  breadth  of  England  and  Wales.  If  there  are  no  means, 
as  there  rarely  can  be,  of  getting  behind  apparent  facts, 
sufferers  for  conscience'  sake,  like  Bennet  and  Whitehead, 
1  Vol.  iii,  pp.  327,  305. 


OF  SUPREMACY  AND  UNIFORMITY       155 

run  the  risk  of  being  denied  the  merit  before  men  of  the 
penalties  they  endured  as  a  punishment  for  daring  to  think 
otherwise  than  the  Queen,  through  her  Parliament,  had 
ordained.  Many  scores — nay,  hundreds — of  such  cases  have 
doubtless  been  recorded  as  examples  of  conformity  which, 
in  reality,  were  no  more  so  than  the  two  here  fortunately 
traced.  Students  of  the  religious  changes  of  this  troubled 
period  must,  in  these  circumstances,  use  the  utmost  caution 
in  accepting  off-hand  such  sweeping  statements  as  that  less 
than  two  hundred  refused  to  acquiesce  in  the  new  form  of 
religion.  While  it  cannot  be  denied  that  only  too  many 
sacrificed  conviction  to  self-interest,  it  must  not  be  over- 
looked that  large  numbers  of  empty  livings  point  to  the 
conclusion  that  there  were  many  more  followers  of  Bennet 
and  Whitehead  than  it  has  hitherto  been  the  fashion  to 
admit. 

On  23rd  September,  1559,  began  the  visitation  of  the 
Cathedral  Chapter  itself:  the  result  affords  evidence  of  the 
uncompromising  attitude  of  that  body  as  a  whole.  The  Visi- 
tors were  in  greater  numbers  than  usual,  there  being  present 
William,  Lord  Ewers,  Sir  Henry  Percy,  Sir  Henry  Gates, 
Edwin  Sandys,  and  Henry  Harvey.  After  the  customary 
formal  business,  and  Sandys'  inevitable  sermon,  the  more 
important  business  was  taken  in  hand.  The  Dean,  Dr. 
Thomas  Robertson,  had  been  appointed  to  that  honourable 
post  in  1557.  His  predecessor  (not  immediate)  had  been 
Dr.  Robert  Home,  who  was  deprived  after  Mary's  acces- 
sion, as  not  properly  ordained,  having  been  promoted  to 
the  priesthood  by  the  Edwardine  Ordinal.  The  policy  of 
the  moment  was  to  ignore  such  Marian  deprivations,  and 
to  restore  these  ejected  Edwardine  clergy  to  their  former 
preferments,  on  the  plea  that  their  deprivations  had  been 
unjust  and  unlawful  and  were  therefore  void  and  of  no 
effect.  Under  these  circumstances  the  Register  does  not 
state  that  Robertson  was  deprived;  but  since  he  stoutly 
affirmed  before  the  commissioners  "that  the  Bishop  of 
Rome  ought  to  have  the  jurisdiction  ecclesiastical  of  this 
Realm,"  and  obstinately  refused  to  take  the  proffered  oaths, 


156  THE  CLERGY  AND  THE  ACTS 

he  was  bound  over  in  his  own  recognisances  in  £500,  and 
two  sureties  in  «£ioo  apiece,  to  present  himself  in  London 
when  he  should  be  summoned  to  do  so,  to  be  there  further 
dealt  with.  Home  was  at  once  reinstated  as  Dean,  so  that 
Robertson's  removal  was,  although  not  so  registered,  tanta- 
mount to  a  deprivation.  Of  ten  prebendaries  who  were 
dealt  with,  two,  Roger  Watson  and  Thomas  Sparkes,  con- 
formed. The  last-named  was  suffragan  Bishop  of  Berwick, 
and  retained  his  stall  at  Durham  and  other  preferments  till 
his  death  in  1571,  but  there  is  no  record  of  his  ever  having 
exercised  episcopal  functions  after  the  Elizabethan  settle- 
ment of  religion.  William  Todd  was  not  present,  but  the 
other  prebendaries  explained  that  he  was  laid  up  with  a 
broken  leg.  This  excuse  did  not  save  him  from  the  ordeal : 
he  was  solemnly  visited  where  he  lay  in  bed,  refused  the 
oaths,  and  was  penalised  by  sequestration,  but  he  did  not 
undergo  deprivation  till  1567.1  The  remainder,  John  Craw- 
forth,  John  Tuttyn,  Stephen  and  Nicholas  Marley,  George 
Bullock,  Anthony  Salvyn  and  George  Cliffe,  all  suffered 
immediate  sequestration,  which  ended  in  due  time  in 
deprivation  for  most  of  them;  but  Salvyn  underwent  that 
fate  there  and  then. 

Carlisle  diocese  was  the  next  to  be  taken  in  hand  by  the 
tireless  commissioners,  who  opened  the  proceedings  at  the 
Cathedral  on  3rd  October,  1559.  They  met  with  no  op- 
position; but  although  Lancelot  Salkeld,  the  Dean,  sub- 
scribed the  oaths  " voluntarie  et  bono  animo"  this  subser- 
vience did  not  avail  him ;  for,  as  he  had  taken  the  place  of 
Sir  Thomas  Smythe,  who  was  a  mere  layman,  in  1553;  so 
he  was  now  compelled  to  give  way  for  the  restoration  of 
the  man  he  had  supplanted,  notwithstanding  the  latter's  lack 
of  qualification.  As  Salkeld  is  enumerated  amongst  those 
acknowledged  to  be  "  deprived,"  he  must  subsequently  have 
returned  to  his  allegiance  to  the  Holy  See,  and  that  shortly 
after  these  events.  Next  day,  in  the  same  place,  the  clergy 
of  the  deaneries  of  Carlisle  and  Allerdale  were  visited,  but 
the  record  merely  states,  without  further  particulars,  "  all 
1  Le  Neve,  Fasti,  iii,  p.  319. 


OF  SUPREMACY  AND  UNIFORMITY       157 

absentees  were  pronounced  contumacious,"  and  that  pro- 
ceedings would  be  taken  against  them.  This  might  signify 
little  or  much,  but  there  are  no  means  for  testing  the  re- 
sults. The  same  formalities,  with  a  like  inconclusive  out- 
come, were  gone  through  on  6th  October  at  Penrith  in  the 
case  of  the  deaneries  of  Cumberland  and  Westmoreland. 
Here  William  Burye,  rector  of  Marton,  underwent  the 
penalty  of  sequestration,  but  the  reasons  leading  thereto 
are  nebulously  expressed  as  being  "  ex  certis  rationabilibus 
causisT  If  this  priest  is  the  same  individual  as  the  one  said 
to  have  been  deprived  at  St.  Nicholas's  Hospital,  Richmond, 
then  this  "  reasonable  "  cause  was  contumacy. 

The  diocese  of  Chester  comes  next  in  order  in  the  Regis- 
ter of  the  royal  commissioners ;  but  in  point  of  time  its 
visitation  preceded  that  of  Carlisle,  having  been  opened  at 
Richmond  on  18th  September.  It  will,  of  course,  be  remem- 
bered that,  at  the  period  in  question,  Richmondshire,  though 
situated  in  Yorkshire,  formed  part  of  the  more  western 
diocese,  and  not  of  that  of  York.  On  18th  September, 
then,  the  clergy  of  Richmond,  Catterick,  and  Borough- 
bridge  deaneries  appeared  before  the  Visitors;  there  is  no 
record  of  any  one  offering  opposition ;  but  in  the  light  of 
subsequent  official  estimates  of  the  conformity  of  that  neigh- 
bourhood, it  is  open  to  doubt  whether  all  the  clergy  were 
really  in  such  a  complaisantly  conforming  mood  in  1559. 
On  9th  October,  the  commissioners  were  at  Kendal,  visit- 
ing that  deanery  and  those  of  Copeland  and  Furness  as 
well.  There,  again,  but  little  information  transpires,  the  re- 
gistrar employing  merely  general  terms.  Lancaster  shows 
no  clearer  results,  so  far  as  the  Register  records.  This  town 
was  visited  on  12th  October,  then  Wigan  was  taken  in 
hand  on  16th  October,  and  Manchester  was  reached  on 
1 8th  October.  On  the  following  day  the  College  there  was 
visited,  but  Lawrence  Vaux,  the  Master  or  Warden,  was 
returned  as  having  gone  to  London.  At  a  later  date  he 
was  deprived  for  his  refusal  to  accept  the  religious  altera- 
tions. John  Copage  (or  Cuppage),  one  of  the  Fellows,  did 
not  appear  before  the  commissioners;  but  all  the  rest  pre- 


158  THE  CLERGY  AND  THE  ACTS 

sented  themselves,  and,  with  one  sole  exception,  sub- 
scribed. This  was  Richard  Hart,  who  altogether  refused  to 
do  so,  and  was  bound  over  to  appear  before  the  com- 
missioners in  London  some  time  during  the  following 
November.  The  Fellows  were  then  ordered  to  exhibit 
their  deeds,  but  they  managed  to  evade  doing  so,  on  the 
convenient  pretext  that  the  Warden  had  them  all  in  his 
keeping,  and  that  in  his  absence  they  could  do  nothing. 
On  20th  October  the  commissioners  proceeded  to  North- 
wich,  but,  finding  urgent  business  awaiting  them  elsewhere, 
they  beat  an  immediate  and  precipitate  retreat  thence, 
subdelegating  their  powers  to  certain  local  gentlemen  as 
their  surrogates,  empowering  them  to  finish  the  work  they 
were  abandoning  "  for  certain  reasonable  causes,  and  es- 
pecially on  account  of  the  plague  raging  both  in  the  city  of 
Chester  and  in  the  surrounding  districts."  These  surro- 
gates, amongst  whom  (to  the  credit  of  his  courage)  is 
numbered  Edmund  Scambler,  soon  to  be  Bishop  of  Peter- 
borough, held  a  session  at  Tarvyn  on  24th  October,  going 
thence  to  Chester  Cathedral  on  26th  of  the  month,  where 
"  all  "  the  clergy  willingly  subscribed.  Of  course  this  state- 
ment applies  only  to  those  who  were  present ;  for  by  known 
facts  it  cannot  be  doubted  that,  as  the  diocese  shows  a 
considerable  number  of  recalcitrants,  a  certain  number 
must  evidently  have  abstained  from  presenting  themselves 
before  the  Visitors.  The  surrogates  report  that  the  See  had 
been  long  vacant,  the  deanery  for  two  years,  and  of  the 
prebendaries,  two  only  were  resident.  The  statement  that 
the  See  had  been  "long"  vacant  certainly  requires  qualifica- 
tion, for  Cuthbert  Scot,  the  lawful  pastor,  was  then  living, 
and  had  suffered  deprivation  only  as  recently  as  the  pre- 
ceding July.  The  Cathedral  was  found  to  be  in  such 
reduced  straits  financially,  that  neither  were  the  needs  of 
the  poor  relieved,  nor  did  the  officials  of  the  Church  receive 
their  salaries. 

With  this  presentment  the  visitation  Register  closes,  so 
far  as  records  go.  How  it  came  to  an  end  officially  will  be 
related  hereafter.    Meanwhile  some  of  the  judicial  acts  re- 


OF  SUPREMACY  AND  UNIFORMITY       159 

main  to  be  considered,  as  they  help  to  throw  a  few  gleams 
of  light  across  the  general  darkness  which  has  settled  down 
on  this  particular  period.  Thus,  a  case  came  before  the 
commissioners  at  Nottingham,  which  not  only  brings  into 
prominence  the  spirit  actuating  the  reformers,  but  must 
also  help  to  a  clearer  understanding  of  the  true  causes  of 
unexplained  changes  of  incumbency  at  this  time.  A  cer- 
tain Oliver  Columban  was  rector  of  Stanford  in  King 
Edward's  reign,  and  like  many  more  of  the  clergy  at  that 
time,  took  unto  himself  a  wife.  On  this  account  he  was 
ejected  from  his  living  during  Mary's  reign,  and  Eliseus 
Umfreye  succeeded  him  as  incumbent.  Columban  now 
petitioned  the  commissioners  of  1559  to  restore  him  to  his 
living.  According  to  the  terms  of  their  powers  they  were 
entitled  to  do  so:  Umfreye  made  no  objection,  and  Colum- 
ban was  accordingly  reinstated.  Umfreye  may  possibly 
have  received  another  living  in  place  of  the  one  he  relin- 
quished in  Columban's  favour;  but  this  does  not  appear  in 
the  visitation  Register.  All  holders  of  livings,  confronted 
with  similar  demands  to  retire,  were  not  so  complaisant. 
Thus,  when  the  commissioners  were  in  session  at  South- 
well, one  Christopher  Sugden,  who  had  been  ousted  from 
his  vicarage  of  Newark  in  the  late  reign,  sought  to  be 
reinstated  at  the  expense  of  John  Taverham,  who  had 
replaced  him.  Taverham  resisted  Sugden's  demand;  never- 
theless, the  Visitors,  as  perhaps  in  duty  bound,  restored 
Sugden.  It  is  not  here  a  question  as  to  whether  Taverham 
expressed  his  willingness  to  conform,  or  not;  but  merely 
that  he  was  adjudged  to  be  holding  the  benefice  illegally ; 
hence  his  ejectment  would  not  be  accounted  as  a  depriva- 
tion in  the  Register,  although  in  fact  it  was  so,  as  Sugden 
had  been  canonically  proceeded  against  in  the  first  in- 
stance. On  the  supposition  that  Taverham  was  unwilling 
to  fall  in  with  the  parliamentary  change  in  religion,  there 
would  here  be  an  undoubted  instance  of  deprivation,  yet 
unrecorded  and  not  accounted  as  such.  As  a  matter  of 
fact,  Taverham  was  no  loser  by  the  transaction.  He  con- 
formed then  or  later,  and  was  inducted  into  a  prebend  in 


160     THE  CLERGY  AND  THE  ACTS 

Southwell  Minster  in  1562.1  In  the  same  way  Anthony 
Blake  succeeded  in  ousting  John  Hudson  from  the  vicarage 
of  Doncaster,  and  John  Atkynson  from  the  rectory  of 
Whyston.  Others  to  suffer  for  the  same  cause  were  Thomas 
Helme,  ejected  from  Latheley,  Richard  Summerscall  from 
Burnsall,  Robert  Blunston  (consenting)  from  Ordsall." 
William  Burye  from  St.  Nicholas's  Hospital,  near  Rich- 
mond, and  also  from  Kirkby  in  Cleveland,3  John  Thornton 
from  Settrington,4  George  Cliffe  from  Elwick,  George 
Bullock  from  the  10th  stall  at  Durham,  Robert  Dalton 
from  Norton  vicarage,  John  Yates  from  Orme's  Head, 
Robert  Pates  from  Bottell,  William  Graye  from  Bridekirk, 
and  Thomas  Redman  from  Eversham ;  in  this  case  the 
restored  incumbent  being  no  other  than  Edwin  Sandys,  one 
of  the  commissioners  in  whose  decision  the  matter  rested. 
Moreover,  Thomas  Atkinson  was  removed  from  Sedbar, 
Thomas  Dobeson  from  Orswicke,  John  Jakeson  from  Bol- 
mer,  John  Hanson  from  the  archdeaconry  of  Richmond, 
David  Ethell  from  Mottram,  Robert  Percivall  from  Rip- 
leye,5  and  Thomas  Huddlestone  (consenting)  from  Hock- 
erton. 

This  summary  of  the  proceedings  of  the  Northern  com- 
missioners makes  it  now  possible  partially  to  analyse  the 
results  of  their  work.  In  the  first  place,  in  order  to  calculate 
on  a  uniform  system  of  averages  and  percentages,  an  ap- 
proximate idea  of  the  real  totals  must  be  obtained  both  of 
livings  and  of  personnel.  For  what  has  already  been  pointed 
out  must  be  constantly  borne  in  mind,  namely,  that  at  this 
particular  period,  1559,  the  number  of  livings  and  the 
number  of  incumbents  to  occupy  them  were  by  no  means 
identical.    Nor  is  the  reason  far  to  seek.    Henry  VIII  had, 

1  Le  Neve,  Fasti,  iii,  p.  427. 

2  This  priest  preached  for  the  Visitors  at  Blythe,  hence  he  had 
proved  his  conformity  at  an  early  date,  and  no  doubt  got  a  living  in 
exchange  for  Ordsall. 

3  But  in  both  cases  he  lodged  an  appeal  to  the  Queen  and  Council 
against  the  action  of  the  Visitors. 

4  But  he  appealed  to  the  Queen  and  Council  against  the  judgment. 

5  This  case  was  referred  to  London. 


OF  SUPREMACY  AND  UNIFORMITY       161 

by  dispersing  the  monks,  thrown  a  large  body  of  priests  on 
the  world  without  adequate  means  of  subsistence  and  with- 
out employment.  They  had,  it  is  true,  been  accorded  pen- 
sions, usually  a  miserable  pittance,  till  such  time  as  they 
could  be  provided,  if  they  so  wished  it,  with  livings.  In  the 
natural  course  of  events,  some  of  these  pensioners  died, 
others  obtained  cures  as  they  fell  vacant,  and  were  thus 
provided  for;  so  that  when  Mary  mounted  the  throne  in 
1553,  her  father's  pension  lists  were  already  much  relieved. 
But  then  came  the  purging  of  the  Church  which,  during 
Edward's  short  reign  and  the  use  of  the  vitiated  Ordinal 
ascribed  to  him,  had  come  to  be  served  by  a  certain  pro- 
portion of  clergy  whose  Orders  the  Roman  Church  refused 
to  acknowledge  as  valid.  The  vocations  to  the  priesthood 
during  the  five  years  of  Mary's  reign  by  no  means  sufficed 
to  fill  the  gaps  caused  by  death  or  deprivation ;  hence,  of 
necessity,  there  had  to  be  recourse  to  the  evil  in  se  of  the 
practice  of  granting  dispensation  to  hold  in  plurality  more 
than  one  benefice.  Even  a  cursory  examination  of  the  de- 
privations of  the  next  reign  and  of  episcopal  registers  will 
suffice  to  prove  this  statement.  Hence,  taking  as  a  basis 
that  England  and  Wales  contained  at  this  time  not  9,400, 
as  Creighton  stated,  but  8,911  parishes,1  it  by  no  means 
follows  that  there  were,  again,  not  9,400  beneficed  clergy- 
men, as  Strype  states  in  his  Life  of  Parker?  but  even  the 
lesser  number  of  8,911.  Thus,  between  February,  1559-60 
and  1570,  over  one  thousand  dispensations  were  issued  for 
the  holding  of  two  or  more  benefices  by  one  clergyman  at 
one  time,3  or,  on  an  average,  at  the  rate  of  one  hundred  a 
year,  more  or  less ;  but,  of  course,  year  by  year  the  numbers 
naturally  decreased,  as  the  candidates  for  ordination  under 
the  Elizabethan  settlement  increased.  In  the  first  year 
(really  only  eleven  months)  there  were  191  such  dispensa- 
tions granted.  Again,  a  special  feature  of  this  particular 
period  which  forces  itself  on  the  attention  of  anyone  who 

1  P.R.O.  Dom.  Eliz.,  cvi,  No.  7. 

2  P.  125. 

3  P.R.O.  Dom.  Eliz.,  vol.  lxxvi. 

M 


1 62     THE  CLERGY  AND  THE  ACTS 

will  examine  the  episcopal  certificates  made  during  the  first 
six  years  of  Elizabeth's  reign  (and  more  particularly  those 
of  1565),  is  the  large  number  of  livings  returned  as  "  having 
no  curate " ;  so  that  even  after  taking  into  account  the 
wholesale  methods  of  providing  pastors  adopted  by  the 
bishops  of  the  Elizabethan  appointment,  there  still  remains 
a  remarkable  shortage  to  be  accounted  for.  Hence  it  may  be 
assumed  with  a  certain  degree  of  safety  and  confidence  that 
7,500  would  more  probably  represent  the  actual  number  of 
clergy  holding  livings  in  1559.  This  inference  is  of  some 
importance  from  another  standpoint;  for  it  is  clear  that,  if 
we  accept  for  the  moment  Camden's  statement  (in  round 
numbers)  that  only  200  refused  to  conform,  then  the  per- 
centage of  7,500  which  they  represent  is  greater  than  if 
compared  with  9,400.  On  the  other  hand,  however,  if  200 
is  too  low  an  estimate  to  accept  as  the  number  of  the  active 
adherents  of  Rome,  as  it  undoubtedly  is,  then  300,  400,  500, 
or  whatever  the  number  of  recalcitrants  may  eventually 
prove  to  be,  forms  a  much  larger  proportion  of  7,500  than 
of  9,400.  In  fact,  the  more  the  question  comes  to  be  looked 
into  with  the  aid  of  figures  whose  accuracy  cannot  fairly  be 
gainsaid,  the  more  equal,  or,  rather,  perhaps,  the  less  dis- 
proportionate, will  prove  to  be  the  balance  between  con- 
formists and  recalcitrants. 

The  Northern  Province,  though  perhaps  comprising 
nearly  a  third  of  the  acreage  of  England  and  Wales,  never- 
theless was  made  up  of  four  only  of  the  sixteen  dioceses 
into  which  the  country  was  then  divided.  Nor  did  it  in 
those  days  contain  the  teeming  populations  of  the  modern 
industrial  centres  of  Liverpool,  Manchester,  Newcastle,  and 
many  other  such  hives  of  human  industry.  The  centres  of 
population  were  scattered,  and  the  country  parts  were 
thinly  inhabited,  vast  tracts  of  moorland  separating  town 
from  town  and  hamlet  from  hamlet.  It  is  needful  to  realise 
these  conditions  in  order  to  arrive  at  a  just  estimate  of  the 
percentages  now  to  be  considered. 

From  the  Valor  Ecclesiastiais  it  may  be  gathered  that 
about  this  period  the  diocese  of  York  contained  600  livings. 


OF  SUPREMACY  AND  UNIFORMITY       163 

From  returns  made  early  in  Elizabeth's  reign,1  it  appears 
that  Carlisle  diocese  contained  1 1 1  parsonages  and  chapels- 
of-ease,  that  Chester  held  383,  and  Durham  213.  In  all, 
therefore,  the  Northern  Province  shows  a  total  of  some 
1,300  livings.  In  the  present  state  of  our  knowledge  it  is 
impossible  to  be  certainly  accurate  or  to  make  a  final  state- 
ment; but,  taking  into  consideration  what  has  already  been 
pointed  out  as  regards  dispensations  to  hold  in  plurality, 
it  will  probably  not  be  far  wide  of  the  mark,  either  above  or 
below  it,  if  it  be  assumed  that  the  Northern  Province 
claimed  the  obedience  of  1,000  clergy  at  the  time  of  the 
visitation  of  1559. 

The  detailed  proceedings  of  the  visitation  (as  recorded 
in  P.R.O.  Dom.  Eliz.,  vol.  x)  show  only  90  priests  as 
formally  summoned,  of  whom  21  appeared  and  took  the 
oaths  required  of  them,  36  appeared  and  refused  to  take 
them,  while  33  absented  themselves,  16  of  whom  were, 
however,  represented  by  proxies,  and  17  were  wholly 
unrepresented.  Thus  it  may  be  inferred  that  of  these  90, 
37  only  conformed,  while  53  desired  to  maintain  the  Papal 
Supremacy.  The  register,  however,  in  a  less  detailed 
fashion,  gives  an  abstract  of  the  numbers  of  beneficed 
and  unbeneficed  clergy  who  refused  to  attend  the  visita- 
tion, although  duly  preconised.  These  abstracts  furnish  a 
total  of  314,  thus  distributed:  York,  158;  Chester,  85; 
Durham,  36;  Carlisle,  35.  Unfortunately  the  register  does 
not  offer  any  information  as  to  the  number  who  attended 
and  refused  to  accept  the  oaths ;  nevertheless,  it  proves 
one  point  conclusively,  namely,  that  in  the  Northern  Pro- 
vince 360  priests  for  absolute  certainty,  probably  double 
that  number,  either  refused  to  take  the  oaths  or  would  have 
refused  had  it  been  found  possible  or  politic  to  bring 
pressure  to  bear  upon  them.  Mr.  Richard  Simpson 2  may 
be  quoted  to  show  that  one  Province  alone,  and  that  the 
smaller  and  more  thinly  populated,  "gives  a  total  much 
higher  than  the  192  which  Protestant  historians  give  as  the 

1  Harl.  MS.  594,  No.  9,  f.  85 ;  No.  10,  f.  89;  No.  16,  f.  186. 

2  Life  of  Campion,  ed.  1896,  note  128,  p.  523. 


1 64  THE  CLERGY  AND  THE  ACTS 

number  of  recusant  clergymen  for  the  whole  of  England,  or 
the  250,  the  number  stated  by  Allen  and  Bridgewater,  after 
Sander."  Again,  taking  the  estimate  at  360  and  not  at  720 
recusants,  it  is  evident  that  fully  one-third,  possibly  two- 
thirds,  or  something  between  these  limits,  of  the  entire 
clergy  of  the  Northern  Province  were  hostile  to  religious 
changes.  It  cannot,  therefore,  be  far  wide  of  the  mark  to 
deduce  that  between  one-half  and  two-thirds  of  the  North- 
ern clergy  were,  if  not  actually  hostile  to  the  principles  of 
the  reformation,  at  least  more  in  sympathy  with  the  religion 
of  Mary  and  Pole  than  with  that  of  Elizabeth  and  Matthew 
Parker. 

This  leaning  towards  the  old  order  may  be  ascertained 
in  another  way  from  the  pages  of  the  visitation  register. 
Although  the  Act  of  Uniformity  had  come  into  force  on 
24th  June,  1559,  nevertheless,  three  or  four  months  later, 
several  churches,  as  Orston,  Apontborowe,  and  Arncliff, 
were  returned  as  still  being  without  the  books  needed  to 
perform  the  English  service.  The  reason  for  this  is  simple 
enough,  if  there  happened  at  those  three  churches  what 
is  definitely  stated  to  have  taken  place  at  many  others, 
namely,  that  the  service  books  provided  during  Edward's 
reign  had  been  burnt  or  otherwise  destroyed  when  the 
Mass  was  restored  under  Mary.  In  other  cases,  church- 
wardens, as  those  of  St.  Peter's,  Nottingham,  lodged  a 
complaint  that  their  curate  "  doth  not  use  the  Lord's 
Prayer,  the  Belief,  and  the  Ten  Commandments,"  that  is, 
that  the  priest  had  not  begun  to  interpolate  those  formularies 
in  English  into  his  Latin  Mass — the  first  and  the  least  con- 
cession to  the  spirit  of  reform.  The  curates  of  Radcliffe  and 
of  Bury  were  delated  for  similar  remissness.  Elsewhere, 
where  the  priest  had  proved  willing  to  conform,  as  at  Fish- 
lake,  his  parishioners  "  do  despise  the  Common  Service" ; 
and  here  and  there  an  individual  is  denounced  because  he 
showed  his  dislike  of  such  innovations  openly,  and  "troubleth 
the  curate  in  time  of  Common  Prayer."  Others,  again,  were 
complained  of  because  they  "  do  wilfully  absent  themselves 
from  the  church  and  from  the  divine  service,  to  the  evil 


OF  SUPREMACY  AND  UNIFORMITY       165 

example  of  all  the  parish";  and  at  Richmond  the  people 
generally  "  come  not  well  to  the  church." 

These  instances  are  negative  rather  than  positive;  but 
still  stronger  marks  of  disaffection  towards  the  new  order 
were  exhibited  and  duly  noted.  At  Doncaster  "the  images 
be  in  the  vestry  not  destroyed,"  waiting  for  a  future  order 
to  set  them  up  again.  At  Osmotherley  "  their  images  be 
conveyed  away,  but  by  whom  they  know  not."  At  Beynton 
"  the  image  of  our  Lady  hath  been  used  for  pilgrimage," 
and  at  Bridlington  "  the  images  be  secretly  kept,"  while  at 
Rotherborn  "  their  images  stand  still  in  the  church."  "  The 
rood  still  remaineth  "  at  Rewle  ;  and,  perhaps  the  most 
flagrant  case  of  all,  in  York  Cathedral  itself  "  altars  still 
stand,  all  saving  the  High  Altar,"  whose  removal  was 
perhaps  considered  as  a  matter  of  policy,  and  in  the  nature  of 
a  temporary  concession  to  expediency.  The  boldness  of  the 
clergy  was  seconded  by  the  laity;  and  in  Chester  city  their 
efforts  to  save  church  property  and  adornments,  ready  to  be 
produced  and  set  up  once  more  upon  another  submission 
to  Rome,  are  noticeable.  Thus,  "  Mistress  Dutton  keepeth 
secretly  a  rood,  two  pictures,  and  a  Mass  book  "  belonging 
to  St.  Peter's  there ;  while  Peter  Fletcher,  who  "  hath  certain 
images  which  he  keepeth  secretly,"  they  being  really  the 
property  of  St.  Mary's  church,  was  denounced  to  the  Visitors, 
not  because  he  was  defrauding  the  church  of  its  posses- 
sions, but  because  he  was  saving  them  from  destruction. 

Such  details  as  these,  taken  singly,  are  trivial  enough,  it 
may  be ;  but  repeated  over  a  wide  area  of  country,  they 
cannot  but  be  recognised  as  local  indications  of  a  wide- 
spread feeling;  and  rightly  interpreted,  they  show  that  the 
Elizabethan  settlement  was  not  instantly  accepted  either 
by  clergy  or  laity  as  the  fulfilment  of  their  ardent  aspira- 
tions, but  rather  that  they  would  have  been  content  to  be 
left  in  the  exercise  of  that  form  of  worship  in  which  they 
had  been  brought  up ;  and  that  if  finally  they  acquiesced  in 
the  changes  then  forced  upon  them,  it  was  due,  not  to  con- 
viction, but  to  a  desire  to  escape  molestation  in  purse, 
property,  and  person. 


CHAPTER  V 

THE  CLERGY  AND  THE  ACTS  OF  SUPREMACY  AND 
UNIFORMITY 

II. —  The  Southern  Visitation  and  the  general  Sequel. 

THE  records  of  the  Northern  Visitation  afford  results, 
if  somewhat  incomplete,  nevertheless  fairly  satis- 
factory, by  reason  of  the  existence  of  an  official  report. 
Turning  our  attention  to  the  Southern  Province,  however, 
we  are  met  by  no  such  report,  and  such  information  as  has 
come  down  to  us  is  of  such  an  altogether  fragmentary  char- 
acter as  to  be  well-nigh  useless.  No  formal  returns  have 
survived,  or,  at  least,  are  at  present  known  to  exist;  no 
such  return  is  referred  to  by  any  writer,  if  it  ever  did  exist. 
Under  the  circumstances,  it  may  be  doubted  whether  any 
such  document  was  ever  drawn  up  at  all.  Such  knowledge, 
therefore,  as  we  possess,  has  reached  our  times  mainly 
through  letters  and  other  such-like  disconnected  sources. 
From  such  materials  we  are  thrown  back  upon  the  necessity 
of  reconstituting  for  ourselves  a  conjectural  picture  of  what 
must  have  taken  place.  This  picture,  thus  made  up  of  a 
mosaic  of  minute  details  gathered  here  and  there,  differs 
little  or  not  at  all  from  that  presented  in  the  official  returns 
from  the  North.  Whichever  way  we  turn,  the  general  impres- 
sion that  confronts  us  is,  that  the  religious  change  was  not 
acceptable  to  the  body  of  the  clergy  any  more  than  to  the 
laity;  that  such  acquiescence  as  was  exhibited  does  not 
necessarily  imply  conviction,  and,  indeed,  rather  points  to 
the  adoption  of  the  line  of  least  resistance ;  that  is  to  say, 
that  the  apparent  acceptance  of  the  Acts  of  Supremacy  and 
Uniformity  was  in  the  great  majority  of  cases  outward  and 
1 66 


THE  CLERGY  AND  THE  ACTS  167 

hollow  and  insincere,  accorded  solely  for  the  purpose  of 
avoiding  in  the  immediate  present  the  unpleasant  conse- 
quences of  recalcitrance;  and  that  this,  to  us,  disgraceful 
temporising  was  due  to  a  blunting  of  conscience,  the  in- 
evitable result  of  the  constant  kaleidoscopic  changes  through 
which  the  clergy  had  been  passing  for  the  last  quarter  of  a 
century.  The  much-sung  "  Vicar  of  Bray "  stands  for  a 
type;  his  is  not  an  isolated  case.  Judging  by  the  past,  the 
clergy  had  no  assurance  that  the  changes  they  were  wit- 
nessing in  the  early  years  of  Elizabeth's  reign  would  not  in 
a  short  time  be  reversed  once  more;  they,  therefore,  bowed 
before  the  storm,  smothered  their  convictions,  if  they  had 
any  left,  and  for  the  most  part,  at  that  period  at  least, 
hardly  appreciated  the  significance  of  those  theological 
subtleties  which  came  to  be  emphasised  only  in  the  course 
of  time,  such  as  the  want  of  apostolic  succession,  the  rejec- 
tion of  true  Orders,  the  Real  Eucharistic  Presence  and  the 
like.  This  has  been  well  expressed  in  Mr.  R.  Simpson's 
Life  of  Edmund  Campion.  "  It  was  only  a  suspension  of 
discipline,"  he  writes,  "  an  authoritative  stoppage  of  the 
persecution  which  had  disgusted  the  people  by  its  cruelty. 
In  country  parishes  where  the  people  were  all  Catholic,  and 
where  the  forced  communion  with  heretics  was  therefore  a 
dead  letter,  there  was  positively  no  change  but  the  un- 
popular substitution  of  the  English  for  the  Latin  service. 
It  appeared  to  be  only  a  toleration  that  must  at  times  be 
practised  by  all  Establishments,  when  their  evil  members 
are  too  numerous  and  powerful  to  be  severely  dealt  with.1 
Its  true  character  only  came  out  step  by  step,  year  by  year, 
and  its  full  consequences  were  only  revealed  when  custom 
and  habit,  enforced  by  policy,  and  irritated  by  many  clumsy 
attempts  to  change  them,  had  become  too  strong  to  be 
conquered."2  The  frame  of  mind  here  indicated  would 
account  for  the  falling  away  of  a  large  part  of  the  clergy 
from  Catholic  unity.    Undoubtedly  the  greater  part  of  the 

1  Cf.  St.  Aug.,  lib.  iii,  c.  2,  Cont.  ep.  Parmenmnz,  and  Can.  Non 
potest.,  23,  q.  4. 

2  P.  201  (ed.  1896). 


168  THE  CLERGY  AND  THE  ACTS 

clergy  did  so  fall  away;  but  the  number  of  those  who 
refused  to  conform  to  the  new  religion  was,  as  undoubtedly, 
much  greater  than  has  been  commonly  supposed.  How  else 
can  the  great  number  of  ordinations  which  took  place  in 
the  early  years  of  Elizabeth's  reign  be  accounted  for?  The 
large  number  of  priests  and  deacons  thus  promoted  prove 
that  there  must  have  been  a  great  number  of  vacancies  in 
the  livings  of  the  country.  And  it  has  already  been  seen 
that  in  many  dioceses  a  considerable  proportion  of  the 
parishes  were  not  served  at  all.1 

The  Marquess  of  Winchester  wrote  to  Sir  W.  Cecil  very 
shortly  after  the  Act  of  Uniformity  became  operative: 
"  This  Friday  morning  I  sent  you  my  son  St.  John's  letter 
sent  me  from  Hampshire,  with  other  writings  made  by  the 
Dean  and  Canons  of  the  Cathedral  Church  and  from  the 
Warden  and  Fellows  of  the  New  College  and  from  the 
Master  of  St.  Cross,  whereby  it  appeareth  they  leave  their 
service  and  enter  to  no  new,  by  cause  it  is  against  their 
conscience,  as  it  appeareth  by  their  writings,  wherein  order 
must  be  taken  with  letters."  2  This  information  was  correct: 
Winchester  city  proved  to  be  exceptionally  staunch  to  the 
old  traditions;  and,  as  will  be  seen  later,  Home,  the  Bishop 
of  that  diocese,  made  frequent  complaint  of  the  backward- 

1  Mr.  N.  Pocock,  writing  in  The  Guardian,  9th  November,  1892, 
p.  1715,  says:  "  In  the  first  year  of  Grindal's  episcopate  many  of  the 
clergy  had  obtained  licence  to  live  beyond  seas,  upon  what  was  called 
'  misliking  of  religion,'  and  their  places  were  partially  filled  by  thirty 
different  ordinations  which  he  held,  at  which  he  admitted  160  deacons 
and  nearly  as  many  priests  to  Holy  Orders,  a  much  larger  number  than 
can  be  accounted  for  by  the  deaths  of  incumbents  or  curates  .... 
Archbishop  Parker,  too,  held  five  ordinations  at  Lambeth  in  less  than 
three  months  after  his  consecration,  at  the  last  of  which  alone  there 
were  155  priests  and  deacons  ordered."  Further  on,  in  the  same  com- 
munication, this  capable  historian,  speaking  of  the  clergy  who  con- 
formed, says  that  they  did  so,  "  holding  in  some  cases  the  Faith  they 
had  before,  and  thinking  that  the  Real  Presence  in  the  Sacrament 
was  not  denied  in  the  new  Prayer- Book  after  the  words  of  the  First 
Book  of  Edward  had  been  restored  and  added  to  the  Zwinglian  words 
which  had  been  substituted  for  them  in  the  Second  Book." 

a  P.R.O.  Dom.  Eliz.,  IV,  No.  72,  3°th  June,  1559. 


OF  SUPREMACY  AND  UNIFORMITY       169 

ness  of  his  flock  in  accepting  the  new  parliamentary  Faith. 
Many  got  into  trouble  for  their  contumacy,  as,  for  instance, 
Peter  Langridge  and  John  Earle,  prebendaries;  for,  by 
2nd  November,  1559,  they  were  prisoners  in  the  Marshal- 
sea,  at  which  date  the  Council  wrote  to  Matthew  Parker 
about  their  enlargement  under  bail,  on  account  of  sickness.1 

London  may  take  precedence  of  other  places  in  this  en- 
quiry, as  being  of  chief  importance ;  also  as  leading  the  way 
in  providing  the  largest  proportion  of  conforming  clergy, 
just  as  in  other  cases  it  has  usually  shown  itself  as  the 
prominent  favourer  of  change.  Its  proximity  to  the  Court ; 
its  constant  intercourse  with  the  Continent;  the  steady 
flow  of  all  descriptions  of  foreigners  flocking  to  it,  may 
readily  account  for  this  phenomenon.  But  it  would  be  a 
mistake  to  draw  conclusions  about  the  rest  of  England 
from  the  conditions  prevailing  in  the  capital.  London,  then, 
being  the  stronghold  of  Protestantism  at  the  commence- 
ment of  Elizabeth's  reign,  we  must  expect  to  find  here  the 
most  numerous  and  most  important  indications  of  adhesion 
to  the  new  Acts;  even  so,  Jewel's  statement  to  Peter 
Martyr a  must  not  be  altogether  forgotten,  or  credited  with 
having  no  application  to  London.  "  Now  that  religion  is 
everywhere  changed,"  he  wrote,  "the  Mass-priests  absent 
themselves  altogether  from  public  worship,  as  if  it  were  the 
greatest  impiety  to  have  anything  in  common  with  the 
people  of  God." 

Machyn  notes  in  his  Diary  that  "  the  xi  day  of  August, 
the  Visitors  sat  at  Paul's :  Master  Doctor  Home  and 
Master  [Huyck]  and  Master  [Salvyn]  upon  Master  [John] 
Harpsfield  and  Master  [Nicholas]  Harpsfield  and  divers 
others."  This  marks  the  opening  of  the  visitation  of  the 
Southern  Province.  The  seven  weeks  that  had  elapsed 
since  the  Act  of  Uniformity  came  into  operation  had 
given  time  for  the  discovery  of  much  difference  of  opinion. 
Thus  Strype,  speaking  of  the  introduction  of  the  new 
Service   Book  on  24th  June,  records  that   "hitherto   the 

1  B.M.  Add.  MS.  5842,  f.  367. 

2  \Zur.,  No.  16,  1st  August,  1559. 


170     THE  CLERGY  AND  THE  ACTS 

Latin  Mass-book  remained,  and  the  priests  celebrated  ser- 
vice, for  the  most  part,  as  they  did  before." '  When  the 
fateful  day  arrived,  however,  those  who  were  fearful  of  what 
might  happen  to  them  if  they  did  not  give  way,  of  course 
conformed  ;  "  but  the  popish  priests,  that  is,  the  majority  of 
them,  utterly  refused."  He  points  out  shortly  after,  as  the 
consequence  of  this  refusal :  "  now,also,  since  many  churches 
were  left  destitute,  the  ministers  that  remained,  and  that 
were  put  into  the  places  of  the  popish  priests,  especially 
in  London,  were  fain  to  serve  three  or  four  churches  on 
Sundays  and  holydays." 2  Injunctions  yet  exist,  directing 
these  ministers  how  they  were  to  attend  to  their  multiplied 
parishes.3 

Meanwhile  evidence  is  forthcoming  that  Visitors  or  other 
energetic  persons  anxious  to  bring  ecclesiastical  practice 
into  line  with  the  provisions  of  the  Act  of  Uniformity,  were 
busy  among  the  London  churches.  Thus  in  a  list  of  church 
ornaments  belonging  to  St.  Christopher-le-Stock,  the  in- 
ventory of  which  was  taken  on  24th  July,  1559,  are  to  be 
seen  an  interesting  number  of  articles  of  furniture,  many  of 
which,  judging  by  the  difference  of  ink,  were  ruled  out  at  a 
later  date,  with  the  significant  marginal  note — "  The  parcels 
are  sold."  They  comprise  a  cross,  candlesticks,  holy-water 
vat,  pyx,  vestments  and  tunicles,  a  corporas-case,  "  a  vayle 
of  lynen  to  drawe  athwarte  the  pyxe,"  antiphonars,  Mass- 
books,  grayles,  legends,  psalters,  and  a  lamp.  Some  of  the 
church-stuff  met  with  a  worse  fate,  for  "  a  lynnen  clothe 
paynted  with  the  takyng  downe  of  Chryst  fro  ye  Cross,"  and 
"  iij  Baner  clothes  for  crosses  paynted  and  gylded  "  were 
"  brent."  A  chalice,  a  cope,  altar  and  table  and  herse  cloths, 
carpets  and  surplices,  even  a  chrysmatory,  were  retained 
for  use.  Another  inventory  made  two  years  later  mentions 
only  these  objects  as  being  then  in  the  possession  of  the 
churchwardens;  hence  the  approximate  date  of  the  dis- 
persal or  destruction  of  the  remainder  is  clearly  indicated.4 

1  Ann.,  i,  p.  135.  -  Ibid.,  p.  136. 

3  Strype,  Life  of  Parker,  p.  130;  Petyt  MSS.  G. 

4  Archaeologia,  vol.  45,  pp.  121-3. 


OF  SUPREMACY  AND  UNIFORMITY       171 

Many  similiar  instances  may  be  come  across,  up  and  down 
the  country. 

To  return,  however,  to  the  Cathedral  Church  of  St.  Paul's, 
and  the  opening  there  of  the  visitation.  Our  chief  source  of 
information  is  Strype,  who  merely  reproduces  the  matter 
of  the  original  register.  All  the  members  of  the  Chapter 
were  cited,  "  but  very  few  appeared.  The  absent  were  pro- 
nounced to  incur  the  pain  of  contumacy."  The  Articles  of 
Enquiry  and  the  Injunctions  were  then  read.  Next  day 
subscription  was  called  for,  whereupon  John  and  Nicholas 
Harpsfield  and  John  Willerton  {or  Willanton)  refused, 
asserting  they  so  acted,  not  with  malicious  or  obstinate 
minds,  but  because  they  were  not  resolved  in  conscience 
about  them.  They  further  refused  to  obey  an  order  to  re- 
move "  images,  idols  and  altars  "  from  the  church.  Sebas- 
tian Westcote,  the  Master  of  the  Choristers,  was  another 
who  refused  subscription.  These  and  the  other  contumaci- 
ous members  of  the  Cathedral  body  were  bound  over,  and 
the  task  of  removing  signs  of  Catholic  worship  was  en- 
trusted to  others  who  showed  themselves  more  pliant. 
Those  who  remained  obstinate  in  their  contumacy  had 
sentence  of  sequestration  passed  on  them,  with  the  further 
threat  of  deprivation  if  they  did  not  submit  before  the  12th 
October  following,  to  which  day  the  visitation  was  ad- 
journed. The  enquiry  was  then  further  adjourned  till 
3rd  November,  when  several  others  besides  those  already 
mentioned  proved  intractable,  and  all,  in  consequence, 
suffered  deprivation.  The  London  rectors  and  vicars  were 
summoned  to  attend  on  this  last-named  day;  those  who 
failed  to  put  in  an  appearance  were  warned  to  do  so  at  a 
later  fixed  date,  under  pain  of  deprivation.1  Machyn  some- 
what differs  in  his  dates,  but  corroborates  the  main  facts. 
He  noted  that  "the  23rd  day  of  October  [the  Visitors  sat 
at  St.  Paul's,  when]  Master  Harpsfield,  the  Archdeacon  of 
London  .  .  .  was  deposed,  and  divers  prebendaries  and 
vicars."  When  the  church  goods  of  St.  Christopher-le- 
Stock  were  "  brent,"  this  fate  befell  them,  probably  "  by  the 
1  Strype,  Ann.,  i,  168-172. 


172  THE  CLERGY  AND  THE  ACTS 

Queen's  Visitors  and  by  her  injunctions;  which  was  exe- 
cuted about  Bartholomew-tide,  when,"  as  Strype  records, 
"  in  St.  Paul's  Churchyard  and  Cheapside,  as  well  as  Smith- 
field,  the  roods  were  burnt  to  ashes,  and  together  with 
them,  in  some  places,  copes  also,  vestments,  altar-cloths, 
books,  banners,  sepulchres,  and  such  like." '  For  at  that 
time  there  was  an  outbreak  of  mob  violence;  and,  as  may 
be  gathered,  it  was  incited  and  inflamed  by  some  of  the 
fanatical  preachers  lately  returned  from  the  continent. 
Stowe  records  that  "  on  the  Eve  of  St.  Bartholomew,  the 
day  and  the  morrow  after,  etc.,  were  burned  in  Paul's 
Churchyard,  Cheap,  and  divers  other  places  of  the  City  of 
London,  all  the  roods  and  other  images  of  the  churches;  in 
some  places  the  copes,  vestments,  altar-cloths,  books,  ban- 
ners, sepulchres  and  rood-lofts  were  burned."2  Machyn, 
also,  noted  that  "  the  time  afore  '  Bathellmytyd  '  [Bartholo- 
mewtide,  i.e.,  24th  August]  and  after,  was  all  the  roods  and 
Marys  and  Johns  and  many  other  of  the  church  goods, 
both  copes,  crosses,  censers,  altar-cloths,  rood-cloths,  books, 
banners  and  banner-stays,  wainscot,  with  much  other  gear 
about  London.  .  .  ."  The  incompleteness  of  this  entry  is 
sufficiently  supplemented  by  another :  "  The  24  day  of 
August,  .  .  .  against  Ironmonger  Lane  and  against  St. 
Thomas  Acres,  two  great  [bonfires]  of  roods  and  Marys 
and  Johns  and  other  images,  there  they  were  burned  with 
great  wonder;  and  the  25  day  of  August,  at  St.  Botulph's 
without  Bishopsgate,  the  rood,  Mary  and  John  [patron  of 
that  church]  and  books;  and  there  was  a  fellow  within  the 
church[yard]  made  a  sermon  at  the  burning  of  the  church 
goods  .  .  .  cross  of  wood  that  stood  in  the  church  yard  .  .  ." 
News  of  these  lawless  doings  quickly  got  abroad ;  and  Sir 
Thomas  Chaloner  found  it  difficult  to  make  people  in  the 
Low  Countries  understand  the  motives  underlying  these 
excesses,  and  therefore  sought  for  instruction  from  Cecil  as 
to  the  explanation  it  were  best  for  him  to  offer.  "  The 
burning  of  the  images  in  Bartholomew  Fair  is  here  much 
spoken  of  with  divers  constructions"  ; — so  he  wrote  from 
1  Ann.,  i,  p.  175.  2  Annals,  ed.  1600,  p.  1082. 


OF  SUPREMACY  AND  UNIFORMITY       173 

Antwerp  :  "  some  esteeming  it  done  of  purpose  to  confirm 
the  Scottish  revolt ;  others  not  marvelling  at  the  plucking 
down  of  them,  seeing  it  is  a  consequent  of  our  religion  re- 
formed, do  yet  think  that  public  burning,  through  the 
novelty,  a  matter  rather  envious  than  of  necessity.  It  is 
here  affirmed  that  such  windows  of  our  churches  as  are 
historied  with  images  shall  be  broken  down  generally.  I 
beseech  you,  Sir,  let  me  (if  ye  think  it  so  meet)  be  somewhat 
hereof  informed  from  you,  that  I  may  know  what  to  answer 
at  this  Court  to  such  as  not  so  much  curiously  as  spleen- 
fully  will  herein  be  in  hand  with  me."1  The  postscript  of 
this  letter  contains  a  further  reference  to  these  events.  "  I 
pray  you,  Sir,"  wrote  Chaloner,  "  let  me  know  whether  ye 
know  of  an  extraordinary  fashion  used  by  those  that  had 
charge  of  taking  down  the  rood  at  Paul's.  I  heard  it  should 
be  used  with  contumely  of  King  Philip  and  Queen  Mary. 
If  not,  then  there  be  over-knavish  letters  sent  over  from 
thence."  Whatever  exaggeration,  if  any,  may  have  coloured 
Chaloner's  information  in  this  specific  instance,  the  general 
impression  was  faithful  enough;  and  though  experience 
should  warn  the  student  from  making  a  sweeping  judg- 
ment on  the  evidence  afforded  by  one  episode,  it  is  also  a 
recognised  truism  that  an  ignorant  mob,  once  egged  on  to 
violence,  and  not  checked,  will  commit  excesses  whose 
effects  must  later  seriously  compromise  the  reputation  and 
interests  of  those  leaders  or  instigators  who  never,  in  the 
first  instance,  intended  that  resort  should  be  had  to  such 
lengths.  But  the  philosophical  maxims :  "  qui  est  causa 
causans  est  causa  causati,"  and  "  qui  facit  per  alium,facit 
per  se"  must  always  hold  good;  hence  the  government 
that  could  permit,  nay  instigate  such  mob-violence,  must 
ultimately  bear  the  responsibility.  It  is  clear  that  no 
attempt  was  made  to  check  this  iconoclasm,  for  we  have  it 
on  Machyn's  authority,  that,  notwithstanding  Chaloner's 
appeal,  "the  16  day  of  September  was  [the]  rood  and 
Mary  and  John  and  St.  Magnus  burned  at  the  corner  of 

1  Chron.  Belg.,  No.  ccccxxn,  ii,  p.  16  ;  and  P.R.O.,  Foreign,  Eliz., 
vol.  vii,  No.  662,  2nd  September,  1559. 


174  THE  CLERGY  AND  THE  ACTS 

Fish  Street,  and  other  things."  This  is  proof  sufficient  that 
this  drastic  method  of  purifying  the  churches  was  an 
organised  and  officially  approved  onslaught,  at  least  im- 
plicitly, on  every  remaining  vestige  of  the  practices  of  the 
old  Faith.  What  took  place  between  these  dates  may  be 
supplied  by  the  imagination. 

The  Visitors  appointed  for  the  London  diocese  of  course 
held  sessions  elsewhere  than  at  St.  Paul's,  as  at  the  Savoy ; 
St.  Margaret's,  Westminster;  St.  Bride's;  St.  Lawrence 
Jewry ;  St.  Michael's,  Cornhill ;  at  Clerkenwell,  for  the 
parishes  of  North  Middlesex;  and  at  Weald,  Chelmsford, 
Bishop's  Stortford,  Dunmow,  and  Colchester,  for  the 
parishes  of  Essex  and  Hertfordshire  within  the  London 
diocese.  As  the  commissioners  had  completed  their  labours 
by  the  end  of  August,  it  would  seem  that  their  work  must 
have  been  somewhat  perfunctorily  performed.  As  there 
were  about  eight  hundred  clergy  at  that  time  in  the 
London  diocese,  and  only  four  hundred  signed  their  sub- 
scription to  the  Acts,  it  is  plain  that  the  remainder,  what- 
ever they  may  have  done  later,  at  that  period  at  least, 
either  refused  outright  to  conform,  or,  like  so  many  of  the 
northern  clergy,  simply  put  in  no  appearance.  It  is  well  to 
place  on  record  here,  that  at  least  twelve  of  those  who 
signed  at  the  period  of  the  visitation,  were  at  a  subsequent 
date  deprived,  showing  that  when  they  had  leisure  to  think 
out  for  themselves  what  their  subscription  really  meant, 
they  repented  of  their  hasty  compliance,  and  would  have 
nothing  to  do  with  the  new-fangled  religion,  when  once  all 
that  it  implied  was  fully  brought  home  to  them.  On  the 
ether  hand,  it  may  not  be  doubted  that  of  the  four  hundred 
who  abstained  from  signing  in  August,  1559,  many  must 
have  finally  acquiesced,  either  tacitly  or  explicitly. 

Outside  London,  opposition  to  the  Act  of  Uniformity 
was  stronger  and  more  open.  The  leaders  of  the  reforming 
party  had  consequently  still  cause  for  misgiving  as  to  the 
ultimate  success  of  their  efforts.  Thus,  Jewel  wrote  on 
1 6th  November,  1559,  to  Peter  Martyr:  "If  my  friend 
Julius  should  come  to  us,  I  promise  him  every  kindness;  I 


OF  SUPREMACY  AND  UNIFORMITY       175 

advise  him,  however,  to  wait  a  little  while,  lest  we  should 
be  obliged  to  return  together  to  Zurich."1  On  19th  June, 
1559,  Bishop  Quadra  told  King  Philip  that  "  the  Judges  of 
England,  as  they  are  called,  who  have  come  here  [London] 
for  the  terms,  have  refused  to  take  the  oath  [of  Supremacy] 
and  have  gone  to  their  homes  without  their  [the  Council] 
having  dared  to  press  them  to  it ;  and  many  others  have  done 
the  same,  and  it  is  thought  that  they  will  not  venture  to  press 
anyone  as  they  had  intended  .  .  .  the  constancy  and  num- 
ber of  the  Catholics  frightens  them,  because  they  see  that 
they  have  not  been  able  to  gain  a  single  man  of  them,  either 
by  promises,  threats,  or  in  any  other  way."2  Quadra  added 
to  this  information  on  27th  June,  reporting  that  "there  is 
news  that  in  the  neighbourhood  of  Winchester  they  have 
refused  to  receive  the  service-book,  which  is  the  Office  these 
heretics  have  composed ;  and  all  the  clergy  of  this  diocese 
had  met  to  consult  as  to  what  they  should  do ;  neither  were 
they  celebrating  Mass,  and  the  populace  were  in  conse- 
quence much  disturbed."3  On  1st  July,  the  Spanish  am- 
bassador, in  writing  to  his  royal  master,  again  referred  to 
the  prevailing  discontent.  "  They  also  say  that  the  Queen 
has  had  news  that  in  the  North  there  are  disturbances  on 
account  of  religion,  and  that  there  they  refuse  to  adopt  this 
new  service-book.  In  the  bishopric  of  Winchester,  I  know 
for  certain  they  have  not  accepted  it,  nor  will  they  take  the 
oath,  and  that  at  the  present  moment  all  is  confusion  there, 
and  that  here  they  have  not  dared  to  press  them."4  From 
the  reformers'  point  of  view  matters  can  hardly  be  said  to 
have  much  improved  in  this  neighbourhood,  even  after  the 
lapse  of  more  than  twenty  years,  for  the  Hampshire  Justices 
of  the  Peace,  complaining  to  the  Lords  of  the  Council 
about  various  forms  of  opposition  they  were  encountering 
in  1583,  state  that  "others  have  boldly  affirmed  that  it  is 
necessary  to  have  Mass,  and  they  hope  to  hear  it ;  and  that 

1  1  Zur.,  No.  24. 

2  Chron.  Belg.,  No.  CCCLVi,  i,  p.  540. 

3  Ibid.,  No.  CCCLix,  i,  p.  544. 

4  Ibid.,  No.  CCCLXii,  i,  p.  548. 


176     THE  CLERGY  AND  THE  ACTS 

they  had  rather  hear  bear-baitings  than  the  divine  ser- 
vice."1 This  widespread  attitude  of  uncompromising  op- 
position had  to  be  broken  down  somehow,  since,  if  allowed 
to  continue,  it  might  have  constituted  a  grave  danger  to 
the  plans  of  the  reforming  party.  Hence,  the  visitations 
were  pressed  forward  in  the  first  instance ;  they  were,  later, 
abandoned  from  the  same  motives,  and  their  very  partial 
success  has  already  been  obscurely  indicated.  That  the 
unpleasant  personal  consequences  of  deprivation  cowed 
the  spirit  and  overcame  the  scruples  of  many  incumbents 
cannot  be  denied;  that  all  but  about  two  hundred  submitted 
cannot,  however,  be  maintained,  or  such  a  sentence  as  the 
following,  written  by  Bishop  Cox  (who  certainly  knew  the 
real  facts)  to  Peter  Martyr,  about  (but  after)  21st  Decem- 
ber, 1559,  could  have  little  or  no  meaning:  "The  popish 
priests  amongst  us,"  he  said,  "  are  daily  relinquishing  their 
ministry,  lest,  as  they  say,  they  should  be  compelled  to 
give  their  sanction  to  heresies." 2 

How  the  dislodgment  of  the  Marian  clergy  was  effected 
may  be  gathered  in  part  from  the  political  correspondence 
of  the  period,  pieced  together.  Bishop  Quadra,  writing  on 
1 3th  August,  1 559,  to  King  Philip,  told  him  that  "  they  have 
commenced  to  carry  out  the  laws  of  this  Parliament  re- 
specting religion  very  rigorously.  They  have  appointed  six 
Visitors  who  examine  everybody,  to  whom,  by  the  law  of 
Parliament,  they  have  to  administer  the  oath,  deprive  those 
who  will  not  take  it,3  and  proceed  against  those  who  are 
found  to  be  disobedient.  They  have  just  removed  from 
St.  Paul's  and  all  the  other  churches  of  London  the  crosses 
and  altars.4  As  regards  the  oath,  they  find  resistance  as 
ever;  for  the  rest,  they  do  as  they  please;  but  it  is  thought 
that  outside  London  they  will  not  proceed  without  oppo- 
sition." B 

1  Cotton  MS.,  Titus  B.  Ill,  No.  29.  -  1  Zur.,  No.  28. 

3  This  important  clause  is  entirely  omitted  in  Major  Martin  Hume's 
translation,  v.  Calendar  of  Spanish  State  Papers. 

4  Major  M.  Hume  adds  images. 

3  Chron.  Belg.,  No.  CCCXCIX,  i,  p.  595. 


OF  SUPREMACY  AND  UNIFORMITY       177 

What  happened  "  outside  London  "  it  is  impossible  to 
record  with  precision,  owing  to  the  fact  that  the  official 
report  of  the  Southern  visitation  was  either  never  drawn 
up,  or  if  drawn  up,  has  been  lost — at  any  rate  it  is  not  at 
present  known  to  be  in  existence,  nor  is  any  direct  reference 
to  it  to  be  met  with.  But  the  signatures  of  those  in  certain 
dioceses  who  conformed  at  this  visitation  remain  in  a 
Lambeth  MS.1  In  default  of  definite  official  information, 
recourse  must  be  had  to  other  but  not  less  authentic 
sources.  Thus,  on  1st  August,  Jewel  informs  Peter  Martyr 
that  he  is  "  on  the  point  of  setting  out  upon  a  long  and 
troublesome  commission  for  the  establishment  of  religion, 
through  Reading,  Abingdon,  Gloucester,  Bristol,  Bath, 
Wells,  Exeter,  Cornwall,  Dorset  and  Salisbury."  This 
itinerary  sufficiently  indicates  the  dioceses  of  Salisbury, 
Oxford,  Gloucester,  Bristol,  Bath  and  Wells,  and  Exeter. 
No  signatures,  however,  attest  the  success  of  the  Visitors' 
efforts.  The  commission  under  which  Jewel  was  acting  was 
dated  19th  July,  1559,  and  was  addressed  to  himself, 
William,  Earl  of  Pembroke,  Henry  Parry,  Licentiate  in 
Laws,  and  William  Lovelace,  Lawyer.2  Jewel  proceeded  to 
tell  his  friend  that  "  the  extent  of  my  journey  will  be  about 
700  miles,  so  that  I  imagine  we  shall  hardly  be  able  to 
return  in  less  than  four  months."  Four  months  later,  almost 
to  the  day,  Jewel  reported  to  Martyr  the  results  of  his 
labours;  and  the  conclusion  he  had  arrived  at  was  that  the 
clergy,  at  least,  showed  scant  signs  of  conformity,  for,  as  he 
expressed  it,  "  if  inveterate  obstinacy  was  found  anywhere, 
it  was  altogether  amongst  the  priests,  those  especially  who 
had  once  been  on  our  side.  They  are  now  throwing  all 
things  into  confusion,  in  order,  I  suppose,  that  they  may 
not  seem  to  have  changed  their  opinions  without  due  con- 
sideration. But  let  them  make  what  disturbance  they 
please;  we  have  in  the  mean  time  disturbed  them  from 
their  rank  and  office." 3  This  "  disturbance  "  here  alluded 
to  doubtless  represents  sequestrations  and  deprivations.    It 

1  Cartae  Miscell.,  xiii,  pt.  2.  2  I  Zur.,  p.  39,  note,  No.  16. 

3  Ibid.,  No.  19,  2nd  November,  1559. 

N 


173     THE  CLERGY  AND  THE  ACTS 

may  also  be  connected  with  the  "  relinquishing  of  the 
ministry "  referred  to  by  Cox,1  and  seems  to  be  further 
hinted  at  by  Jewel  in  the  letter  just  quoted  from.  "  The 
ranks  of  the  Papists,"  he  continues,  "  have  fallen  almost  of 
their  own  accord.  Oh!  if  we  were  not  wanting  in  our  exer- 
tions, there  might  yet  be  good  hopes  of  religion.  But  it  is 
no  easy  matter  to  drag  the  chariot  without  horses,  especially 
uphill."  He  then  sums  up  the  results  in  words  which,  since 
they  exhibit  violent  bias,  must  be,  to  some  extent  at  least, 
discounted.  But  they  are,  nevertheless,  of  value,  as  showing 
that  in  the  large  tract  of  country  he  had  traversed,  the 
people  were  at  that  date  still  thoroughly  Catholic  in  their 
sentiments.  "  We  found  everywhere  the  people  sufficiently 
well  disposed  towards  religion,  and  even  in  those  quarters 
where  we  expected  most  difficulty."  At  most  these  words 
would  mean  that  where  the  issues  were  but  ill  compre- 
hended amongst  a  rude  people  little  in  touch  with  the 
movements  in  the  capital,  no  great  opposition  was  offered 
to  changes  whose  significance  was  not  immediately  ap- 
parent and  on  the  surface.  Thus,  where  the  new  Service 
was  said  to  be  the  Mass  merely  in  English,  the  matter  of 
language  was  not  held  to  be  sufficient  cause  for  riot.  But 
Jewel  went  on  to  state  that  he  had  found  it  "hardly 
credible  what  a  harvest,  or  rather  what  a  wilderness  of 
superstition  had  sprung  up  in  the  darkness  of  the  Marian 
times.  We  found  in  all  places  votive  relics  of  saints,  nails 
with  which  the  infatuated  people 2  dreamed  that  Christ  had 
been  pierced,  and  I  know  not  what  small  fragments  of  the 
sacred  Cross.  The  number  of  witches  and  sorceresses  3  had 
everywhere  become  enormous.1  The  Cathedral  Churches 
were  nothing  else  but  dens  of  thieves,  or  worse,  if  anything 
worse  or  more  foul  can  be  mentioned."  5  If  this  picture 
were  even  approximately  near  the  truth,  it  may  justly  be 

1  i  Zur.,  No.  28. 

2  "  Fatui "  in  original ;  =  fools,  or  foolish  people. 

3  "  Magarum  et  veneficarum  numerus." 

4  "  Ubique  in  immensum  excreverat." 

5  I  Zur.,  No.  19,  2nd  November,  1559. 


OF  SUPREMACY  AND  UNIFORMITY       179 

asked  how  it  is  that  deprivations  were  not  more  numerous 
than  historians  state,  merely  in  the  interests  of  morality 
and  justice,  putting  aside  altogether  those  of  conform  it)-, 
the  immediate  object  in  view. 

The  diocese  of  Norwich  furnishes,  from  the  Lambeth 
MS.,  525  names  of  subscribers.  Of  these,  eight  were  subse- 
quently deprived,  discounting  from  the  value  of  their  ad- 
hesion to  the  new  order,  in  September,  1559.  Dr.  Jessop  in- 
formed Mr.  Gee  that  at  that  period  there  were  some  six 
hundred  clergy  resident  in  the  diocese  to  see  to  the  spiritual 
wants  of  1,200  parishes.1  This  estimate  hardly  agrees  with 
Parkhurst's  own,  which  gives  y6y  livings  having  incum- 
bents. This  was  but  shortly  after,  in  1563 ; 2  while  in  a 
return  made  to  the  Queen  about  1 565,  the  number  of  vacant 
livings  was  given  as  then  being  only  104.3  In  any  case,  the 
number  of  525  subscribers  represents  a  high  percentage; 
but  it  is  lessened  if  the  total  is  taken  as  Parkhurst's  767 
instead  of  Jessop's  600. 

Ely  furnished  94  subscribers.  But  Mr.  Gee's  list,  when 
confronted  with  Add.  MS.  5828,  f.  28,  etc.  (being  extracts 
from  the  institutions  of  Bishop  Cox's  register)  discloses  the 
incompleteness  of  his  researches.  Thus,  parson  "  Darner  "  of 
Hockington,  should  be  "  Dande,"  who  was  deprived  of  that 
living  in  1564;  and  the  many  names  occurring  in  that 
register  go  to  show  that,  for  some  considerable  time  at 
least,  no  pressure  was  brought  to  bear  on  many  who 
evidently  absented  themselves  from  the  visitation  of  1559. 
J.  Etwold,  vicar  of  Chesterton,  subscribed  in  1559;  and 
yet,  by  October,  1566,  his  successor,  John  Todd,  vacated 
that  living  by  cession.  How  and  when  did  Etwold  vacate? 
These  and  many  other  such  like  unexplained  difficulties 
go  to  show  that  a  number  of  incumbents,  although  out  of 
sympathy  with  the  new  order,  continued  to  hold  their 
livings  for  a  longer  or  shorter  period  after  a  settlement  is 
supposed  to  have  been  reached.  In  fine,  adhesion  is  not  to 
be  taken  as  a  mark  of  enthusiastic  conviction,  but  might 

1  Elizabethan  Clergy,  p.  96,  note  2.  2  Lansd.  MS.  6,  No.  60. 

3  P.R.O.  Dom.  Eliz.,  Add.  XII,  No.  108. 


i8o  THE  CLERGY  AND  THE  ACTS 

more  truly  be  ascribed  to  fear  of  the  consequences  of  refusal 
and  of  expectation  for  another  turn  in  the  wheel  of  chance. 
This  aspect  of  the  case  has  been  well  described  by  Mr. 
Simpson,  writing  even  of  several  years  later.  "  They  were 
all  waiting  for  something  to  turn  up ;  .  .  .  they  were  wait- 
ing for  Burghley  to  die,  or  for  Elizabeth  to  die  or  to  marry 
a  Catholic  husband,  or  for  the  King  of  Spain  to  come  and 
depose  her  .  .  .  forgetting  that  fate,  unresisted,  overcomes 
us,  but  is  conquered  by  resistance.  It  was  this  English 
dilatoriness,  this  provisional  acquiescence  in  wrong,  this 
stretching  of  the  conscience  in  order  that  men  might  keep 
what  they  had,  which  made  it  possible  that  England  should 
be  lost  to  the  Church."  l 

When  Elizabeth's  first  Parliament  was  being  dismissed, 
and  when  the  anti-Catholic  Bills  became  law,  but  before 
their  meaning  and  tendency  could  have  percolated  into  the 
country  districts,  the  Conde  de  Feria,  commenting,  in  his 
despatches  to  the  King  of  Spain,  on  what  had  passed,  re- 
minded him  that  "  the  Catholics  are  in  a  great  majority  in 
the  country;  and  if  the  leading  men  in  it  were  not  of  so 
small  account,  things  would  have  gone  differently."2  A 
quarter  of  a  century  later,  Rishton,  in  his  continuation  of 
Sander's  history  of  the  schism,  corroborates  this  judgment, 
for,  he  says,  speaking  of  the  earlier  years :  "  Besides  the 
very  large  number  of  the  nobility,  of  whom  I  have  spoken 
before,  the  greater  part  of  the  country  gentlemen  was  un- 
mistakably Catholic ;  so  also  were  the  farmers  throughout 
the  kingdom,  and  in  that  kingdom  they  are  an  honourable 
and  wealthy  people.  They  all  hated  the  heresy.  Not  a 
single  county  except  those  near  London  and  the  Court, 
and  scarcely  any  towns  except  those  on  the  sea-coast,  will- 
ingly accepted  the  heresy." 3    Rishton  goes  on 4  to  say  that 

1  Life  of  Campion,  ed.  1 896,  p.  9. 

2  "Es  gran  parte  la  de  los  Catolicos  que  hay  en  el  reino,  y,  si 
los  hombres  principales  que  hay  en  el  no  fueran  tan  de  poco,  las 
cosas  hubieran  ydo  diferentemente."  Cf.  Chron.  Belg.,  No.  cccxlvi, 
i,  p.  519. 

3  Ed.  1877,  p.  265.  4  Ibid. 


OF  SUPREMACY  AND  UNIFORMITY       181 

many  others,  though  "  Catholic  at  heart,  nevertheless 
thought  they  might  to  some  extent  outwardly  obey  the 
law,  and  yield  to  the  will  of  the  Queen ;  if  in  so  doing  there 
was  any  sin,  that  must  be  laid  at  the  Queen's  door,  not  at 
theirs,  for  they  were  of  opinion  that  the  straits  they  were  in 
somehow  or  other  might  be  held  to  excuse  them.  This 
opinion  was  adopted  also  by  the  lower  clergy,  simple  and 
parish  priests,  not  a  few  canons  of  Cathedral  or  Collegiate 
churches,  who  in  their  hearts  hated  the  heresy,  and  for  a 
time,  listening  to  the  voice  of  conscience,  refrained  from 
the  use  of  the  new  Service.  So  general  was  this,  that  after 
the  day  appointed  by  the  statute  on  which  the  true  Sacrifice 
was  to  cease  and  the  false  rites  were  to  begin,  many 
churches  throughout  the  kingdom  remained  shut  for  some 
months;  for  the  old  priests  would  not  willingly  use  the 
schismatical  service,  and  the  new  ministers  were  not  yet 
numerous  enough  to  serve  so  many  places."  From  these 
contemporary  indications,  it  is  clear  that  the  acceptance  of 
the  change  on  the  part  of  the  clergy,  where  it  did  take 
place,  was  not,  in  the  beginning,  sincere.  And  it  can  hardly 
be  said  that  it  was  accepted  by  the  bulk  of  the  laity. 
Bishop  Quadra,  writing  on  ist  July,  1559,  to  King  Philip, 
informed  him  that  "  They  also  say  that  the  Queen  has  had 
news  that  in  the  North  there  are  disturbances  on  account  of 
religion,  and  that  there  they  refuse  to  adopt  this  new  service- 
book."  '  This  tallies  with  the  information  he  had  already 
given  about  the  southern  diocese  of  Winchester,  and  corro- 
borated in  the  present  letter,  thus  fully  bearing  out  the  words 
just  quoted  from  Rishton.  Quadra,  writing  to  Feria  on  16th 
January,  1 5  59-60,  told  him  that  many  Masses  were  still  being 
said  in  London;2  and  on  7th  March,  1559-60,  he  pressed 
upon  him  his  urgent  need  of  money.  Such  appeals  he  had 
been  reiterating  now  for  a  considerable  while;  his  own  means 
had  been  swallowed  up;  he  was  in  debt;  and  yet  the  calls 
on  him  were  incessant.  "  Not  a  day  passes,"  he  said,  "  that 
I  am  not  besieged  by  poor  clergymen  and  students,  whom 

1  Chron.  Belg.,  No.  ccclxii,  i,  p.  548.   See  ante,  p.  175. 

2  Ibid.,  No.  dxxviii,  ii,  p.  186. 


1 82  THE  CLERGY  AND  THE  ACTS 

they  have  turned  out  of  their  benefices  and  colleges,  and 
who  come  to  beg  for  charity.  I  cannot  help  relieving  them. 
...  I  gave  Rastelo  [?  Rastall]  25  crowns  the  other  day  for 
clothes;  he  is  preaching  secretly  in  the  desert  like  an 
apostle.  Every  day  I  have  to  find  money  for  somebody."  l 
The  course  of  the  visitations  of  the  two  ecclesiastical 
provinces  had  been  brought  to  a  finish  by  the  end  of 
October,  1559;  but  the  task  set  the  Visitors  had  been  by 
no  means  completed,  as  has  been  seen.  Too  much  stress 
must  not  be  laid  upon  this  fact,  for  it  is  clear  that  in  so 
gigantic  an  undertaking  more  time  would  have  to  be 
allowed  than  in  the  nature  of  the  case  the  commissioners 
could  possibly  bestow  upon  it  in  the  short  while  that  had 
elapsed  since  they  entered  upon  their  labours.  This  had 
been  foreseen;  and  a  permanent  and  stationary  commis- 
sion had  been  created  by  the  Queen's  Letters  Patent  on 
19th  July,  1559.2  As  has  been  narrated,  many  cases  of 
contumacy  which  occurred  during  the  provincial  visitations 
were  held  over  to  be  dealt  with  at  leisure  by  this  central 
commission,  and  the  delinquents  had  been  bound  over 
under  recognisances  to  appear  before  it  in  London  at 
different  dates,  late  in  the  autumn.  This  commission, 
after  disposing  of  the  cases  thus  relegated  to  it  by  the 
itinerant  royal  commissioners,  continued  in  being  to 
direct  and  enforce  the  Elizabethan  settlement  of  religion 
as  a  central  authority  acting  in  the  name  of  the  Queen 
with  almost  unlimited  and  plenary  authority.  And  it  had 
much  to  do;  for,  as  has  been  gathered  from  the  quotations 
taken  from  episcopal  Injunctions  and  Articles  of  Enquiry 
during  a  long  series  of  subsequent  years,  the  royal  com- 
missioners had  left  behind  them  altars  and  rood  lofts  and 
images  intact,  and  a  large  body  of  unsworn  clergy.  Even 
where  the  clergy  submitted,  the  bishops  were  generally 
under  no  illusion  as  to  the  worth  of  such  subscription. 
Bishop  Pilkington,  indeed,  likened  his  frustrated  efforts  to 
reduce  his  clergy  to  St.  Paul's  encounter  with  wild  beasts 

1  Chron.  Belg.,  No.  dlxxv,  ii,  p.  250. 

2  P.R.O.  Dom.  Eliz.,  v,  No.  18. 


OF  SUPREMACY  AND  UNIFORMITY       183 

at  Ephesus.1  Since,  however,  this  central  court,  or  ecclesi- 
astical commission,  had  been  constituted,  the  local  or 
itinerant  court  could  only  clash  with  it.  The  Queen  was 
accordingly  advised  to  recall  the  powers  conferred  in  the 
previous  June,  and  pursuant  to  this  policy,  in  the  December 
of  1559  she  issued  letters  to  the  commissioners  of  both 
provinces,  to  suspend  their  proceedings,  and  to  determine 
only  such  matters  as  had  been  already  commenced.2 

The  Elizabethan  bishops  who  replaced  the  deprived 
Marian  bishops  or  who  filled  up  the  other  Sees  left  vacant 
by  death,  got  to  work  with  a  will  to  purge  their  respective 
dioceses  of  such  remnants  of  Popery  as  they  could  discover, 
and  these  were  plentiful  enough.  Shortly  after  their  con- 
secration they  set  about  making  visitations;  but  their 
eagerness  seemed  likely  to  create  more  embarrassment  for 
the  Government  than  was  convenient;  their  zeal  was  there- 
fore checked  by  the  Primate,  acting  under  instructions. 
Accordingly,  on  27th  May,  1560,  Archbishop  Parker  issued 
letters  to  Grindal,  Bishop  of  London,  to  be  communicated 
by  him  to  the  other  suffragans,  whereby  he  inhibited  them 
from  visiting  their  dioceses  under  pain  of  contempt,  on  the 
plea  that  both  clergy  and  laity  had  been  already  over- 
burthened  by  the  expense  of  such  visitations;  the  bishops 
were  therefore  to  defer  their  proceedings  to  a  more  con- 
venient time.3  No  document  can  be  traced  which  might 
give  the  explanation  of  the  motives  underlying  this  with- 
drawal of  the  powers  entrusted  to  the  commissioners  ap- 
pointed in  June,  1559.  It  was  clear  that  the  Government 
was  anxious  to  proceed,  if  possible,  without  having  recourse 

1  P.R.O.  Dom.  Eliz.,  xx,  No.  5,  15th  October,  1561. 

-  Ibid.,  vn,  No.  79.  "...  We  now  have  thought  it  convenient  to 
will  and  require  you  to  surcease  from  any  further  intermeddling 
therein  .  .  .  and  that  ye  deliver  your  acts  registered  together  with 
the  seal  of  your  jurisdiction  ...  to  our  principal  secretary  .  .  .  re- 
serving nevertheless  unto  you  power  and  authority  to  examine  and 
determine  all  such  matters  only  [and  no  others,  added  in  Cecil's  hand- 
writing] ...  in  as  large  manner  as  if  our  said  Commission  had 
not  been  revoked." — Draft. 

3  Reg.  Parker,  i,  f.  220b.    Parker  Corresp.,  p.  115,  No.  80. 


1 84  THE  CLERGY  AND  THE  ACTS 

to  severe  coercive  measures.  The  time  had  not  yet  arrived 
for  it  to  embark  upon  its  subsequent  policy  of  terror- 
ism by  imprisonment,  rack,  and  halter.  Hence  it  may  be 
surmised  that  it  recoiled  from  the  consequences  of  en- 
forcing its  own  Acts  ad  pedem  litterae,  the  penalties  they 
contained  in  the  first  instance,  mild  as  they  were  in  com- 
parison with  others  of  a  later  date,  having  been  placed  on 
the  statute  book  doubtless  more  in  terrorem  than  to  be 
put  into  execution.  It  may  therefore  be  surmised  that  the 
commissions  issued  in  June,  1559,  were  withdrawn  in  view 
of  the  strong  body  of  opposition  met  with  in  the  course  of 
the  summer  and  autumn  of  that  year. 

As,  however,  these  recalcitrants  could  not  be  left  in- 
definitely in  a  state  of  opposition  to  the  new  state  of  things, 
fresh  Letters  Patent  were  issued,  dated  20th  October,  1559, 
empowering  the  permanent  commission  to  enforce  the  oath 
of  Supremacy.  The  document  in  question1  recites  that  since 
certain  ecclesiastical  persons  had,  during  the  late  visitation, 
"refused  to  observe  the  rites,  ceremonies  and  divine  ser- 
vice within  our  said  kingdom  and  other  our  dominions,  as 
ordained  and  provided  by  our  laws,  statutes  and  injunc- 
tions," therefore  these  officials  were  thereby  empowered  to 
administer  the  said  oath  to  all  archbishops,  bishops,  and 
other  ecclesiastical  persons,  and  their  acceptance  or  refusal 
thereof  was  to  be  certified  into  Chancery.  With  what 
result  their  labours  were  rewarded  may  be  gauged  by 
indications  rather  than  by  positive  proofs.  The  Crown 
had  a  large  amount  of  patronage  in  the  shape  of  presenta- 
tions to  livings.  Amongst  the  Lansdowne  MSS.2  is  a  list  of 
such  presentations  arranged  according  to  regnal  years. 
Taking  an  average  of  the  first  fifteen  years,  i.e.,  from  the 
Queen's  accession  till  17th  November,  1573,  it  would  appear 
that  112  livings  fell  yearly  to  the  Queen's  patronage.  In  her 
first  year,  however,  those  presentations  actually  amounted 
to  201,  while  in  the  next  they  were  144.  In  other  words, 
in  those  two  years  more  livings  were  vacated  than  should 
have  been  voided  in  any  three  average  years.  But  it  must 
1  Rymer,  Foedera,  xv,  p.  546.  *  No.  443. 


OF  SUPREMACY  AND  UNIFORMITY       185 

be  pointed  out  that  this  average  has  been  struck  from 
years  of  Elizabeth's  reign,  including  the  years  when  de- 
privations were  being  carried  out.  To  make  a  really  just 
comparison,  other  reigns,  and  periods  of  rest,  should  be 
taken  as  the  normal  standard ;  but  this  would  be  a  matter 
of  such  extreme  difficulty  that  it  cannot  be  attempted. 
However,  it  may  be  noted  that  in  Elizabeth's  fifth  to  eighth 
years,  when,  presumably,  matters  had  somewhat  settled 
down,  the  royal  presentations  were  80,  94,  86,  86,  giving  an 
average  of  86  a  year.  Compared  with  this,  it  will  be  seen 
that  the  average  of  1 12  above  indicated  is  exceedingly  high, 
and  if  we  take  the  numbers  presented  in  1559  and  1560, 
the  movement  in  the* ranks  of  the  clergy  during  that 
period  of  unrest  is  very  significant  indeed,  in  fact  wholly 
abnormal. 

This  interesting  MS.  (Lansd.  443)  may  be  approached 
from  another  standpoint.  It  comprises  two  parts:  Queen's 
presentations  (a)  by  Privy  Seal;  (b)  through  the  Lord 
Chancellor.  From  the  Queen's  accession  till  the  end  of 
September,  1559,  i.e.,  for  \o\  months,  31  presentations 
were  made.  In  October,  20,  in  November,  37,  and  in 
December,  22  presentations  are  recorded,  that  is,  in  one- 
third  of  the  earlier  period  twice  and  a  half  more  presenta- 
tions are  registered,  while  for  the  remainder  of  the  second 
regnal  year,  i.e.,  \o\  months,  54  further  appointments  are 
registered.  On  examining  the  Chancellor's  appointments, 
they  appear  in  the  following  proportions  during  the  months 
°f  1 559-  January,  4;  February,  14;  March,  21;  April,  25; 
May,  26;  June,  32;  July,  16;  August,  11;  September,  3; 
October,  40;  November  (incomplete),  9;  thus  June  and 
October,  the  months  of  the  application  of  the  Act  of 
Uniformity  and  of  the  visitations,  stand  out  with  the 
largest  number  of  vacancies  to  be  filled.  It  is  usual  to 
refer  to  the  lists  of  deprived  clergy  as  drawn  up  by  Bridge- 
water  in  his  Concertatio,  and  by  Sander  in  De  Visibili 
Monorchia^  as  proof  that,  even  on  the  evidence  and  admis- 
sion of  Catholics  themselves,  their  number  was  very  small. 
The  answer  to   this  is  simple.     Bridgewater  and  Sander 


1 86  THE  CLERGY  AND  THE  ACTS 

lived  abroad,  and,  therefore,  it  was  practically  impossible 
for  them  to  acquaint  themselves  with  what  actually  took 
place  in  all  the  9,400  livings  with  which  it  is  customary  to 
credit  the  English  Church  at  that  period.  It  would  be 
difficult  to  do  this  with  accuracy  to-day,  with  the  aid  of 
Crockford's  Directory;  what  would  it  have  been  in  those 
days,  if  slowness  of  communication,  the  many  circum- 
stances connected  with  personal  safety,  the  safe-guarding 
of  the  interests  of  the  laity,  and  the  like,  be  taken  into 
account?  The  lists  of  ejected  clergy  as  drawn  up  by 
Bridgewater  and  Sander  were  not,  therefore,  exhaustive, 
nor  were  they  printed  by  them  as  being  so.  They  were 
tentative,  merely,  and  Sander  expressly  states  this.  After 
giving  a  long  list  of  deprived  canons,  he  said:  "But  it 
must  not  be  understood  that  these  whom  I  have  here  set 
down  are  the  only  prebendaries  of  Cathedral  Churches  who 
lost  country,  goods,  liberty,  and  life  on  account  of  their 
adhesion  to  the  Roman  See;  for  I  am  sure  that  very  many 
more  are  deserving  of  this  praise.  But  I  have  named  those 
whom  either  I  knew,  or  had  learnt  from  others  that  they 
had  been  removed  from  their  dignities.  But  parish  priests 
and  other  clergy  .  .  .  are  much  more  difficult  to  enumerate." 
A  little  further  on,  Sander  states  that  those  who  up  to  the 
period  of  writing,  1571,  had  been  ejected  from  the  Uni- 
versities, could  not  have  been  less  than  300  in  number, 
"whom  I  was  unwilling  to  put  down  here,  partly  lest  I 
should  weary  the  reader,  partly  because  I  could  with 
difficulty  learn  the  individual  names."  l 

Various  other  aspects  of  the  case  have  also  to  be  con- 
sidered. Mr.  Richard  Simpson,  in  his  Life  of  Campion? 
thus  summarised  the  results  of  the  Northern  Visitation. 
"Out  of  90  clergymen  summoned,  21  came  and  took  the 
oath,  36  came  and  refused  to  swear,  17  were  absent  without 
proctors,  16  were  absent  with  proctors.  Yet  of  the  36,  the 
lists  of  Bridgewater  and  Sander  only  contain  5  names; 
of  the  17,  four;  of  the  16,  seven.  If  those  lists  are  perfect, 
it  proves  that  the  rest  were  connived  at,  and  perhaps 
1  Ed.  1 57 1,  pp.  688,  sqq.  2  Ed.  1896,  p.  197. 


OF  SUPREMACY  AND  UNIFORMITY       187 

retained  their  livings  till  their  deaths."  Those  who  refused 
to  attend  the  visitation  although  summoned,  numbered  alto- 
gether 314,  thus  distributed:  158  in  the  archdiocese  of 
York,  85  in  Chester,  36  in  Durham,  and  35  in  Carlisle. 
There  is,  however,  no  abstract  of  those  who  attended  and 
refused  the  oath.  But  the  return  proves  that  in  the  Northern 
Province  at  least  370  priests — probably  600 — either  refused 
to  swear,  or  would  have  refused  if  they  had  been  pressed  to 
do  so.  It  is  this  aspect  of  the  case  that  may  be  presumed 
to  have  carried  some  weight  in  the  royal  decision  to  bring 
the  visitation  to  so  sudden  a  termination. 

Moreover,  it  may  be  noted  that  in  the  great  return 
referred  to,  43  livings  appear  as  "  vacant."  Some  of  those 
vacancies  were,  no  doubt,  due  either  to  the  deaths  of  the 
late  incumbents  or  to  the  other  usual  causes;  but  it  is  to 
be  suspected,  in  the  light  of  the  above  evidence,  that  some 
at  least  of  the  livings  had  been  abandoned  for  conscience' 
sake,  or  through  fear  of  the  consequences  of  recusancy. 
The  total  number  of  the  clergy  of  the  Northern  Province 
was  1,130.  Of  these,  a  minimum  estimate  of  370 — more 
probably  600  according  to  Mr.  Simpson's  calculation — 
refused  to  swear.  Even  the  lower  figure  furnishes  a  per- 
centage of  33  who  were  in  favour  of  maintaining  Catholic 
Faith  and  the  old  order.  Can  it  be  supposed  then  for  one 
moment  that,  throughout  the  length  and  breadth  of  Eng- 
land, only  192  priests  of  all  grades  were  found  averse  to 
the  royal  Supremacy  and  the  parliamentary  settlement  of 
religion?  If  the  Northern  visitation  had  been  permitted  to 
take  its  course  and  come  to  a  normal  conclusion,  all  the 
clergy  refusing  to  appear  would  have  been  at  least  se- 
questered, if  not  deprived,  for  their  contumacy;  but  these 
extreme  measures  appear  to  have  been  resorted  to  with 
regard  to  comparatively  few  individuals,  possibly  the  most 
obstinate  or  the  most  influential.  This  fact  cannot  be 
explained  by  appealing  to  the  supposition  of  subsequent 
submission  on  the  part  of  the  clergy  arguable  from  their 
continuance  in  their  livings,  for  there  is  no  direct  evidence 
of  it.    Nor  can  leniency  on  the  part  of  the  Visitors  be 


188  THE  CLERGY  AND  THE  ACTS 

invoked  as  a  solution  of  the  mystery,  for  the  whole  tenor 
of  their  proceedings  conveys  the  impression  that  they  were 
terribly  in  earnest  over  the  task  that  they  had  been  set  to 
carry  out;  so  earnest,  indeed,  that  the  Queen  had  perforce 
to  stay  their  energy,  "lest,  while  too  eagerly  scouring  off  the 
rust,  the  vessel  itself  should  be  broken."1 

We  are  now  furnished  with  sufficient  evidence  to  discuss 
the  accepted  fable  that  of  all  the  clergy  of  England,  but  an 
insignificant  fraction  was  averse  to  the  rejection  of  the  See 
of  Rome  and  its  distinctive  doctrines,  effected  by  Parlia- 
ment in  1559.  The  late  Dr.  Mandell  Creighton,  Bishop  of 
London,  whose  epitaph  praises  him  inasmuch  as  "he  tried 
to  write  history,"  wrote  in  his  Queen  Elizabeth'  that  "The 
clergy  were  prepared  to  acquiesce  in  the  change.  Out  of 
9,400  clergy  in  England,  only  192  refused  the  oath  of 
supremacy."  Hence  he  argued  that  "In  England  generally, 
the  religious  settlement  was  welcomed  by  the  people  and 
corresponded  to  their  wishes  .  .  .  they  detested  the  Pope; 
they  wished  for  services  which  they  could  understand,  and 
were  weary  of  superstition."  These  conclusions  have  more 
recently  been  endorsed  by  Rev.  W.  H.  Frere  in  The  Eng- 
lish Church  in  the  Reigns  of  Elisabeth  and  James  I, — 
accepted  as  the  last  word  on  the  subject.  He  writes :! : 
"The  clerical  body  remained  almost  entirely  the  same  .  .  . 
a  small  number  were  deprived — not  more  than  about  200, 
so  it  appears — in  the  first  six  years  of  the  reign." 

D'Ewes,  Fuller,  Collier,  Strype  and  other  writers  all 
reproduce  the  figures  9,400  and  192  (or  something  near  it, 
as  189);  but,  as  already  pointed  out,  each  one  has  bor- 
rowed his  information  from  Camden.  Camden  says:  "but 
certes  as  themselves  [i.e.,  the  Catholics]  have  certified,  etc.," 
showing  that  his  authority  was  Sander,  and  it  has  already 
been  seen  that  Sander  had  drawn  up  at  most  an  ad  interim 
list.  Had  this  list  been  final  and  complete,  the  assertion 
of  Bishop  Creighton  would  be  amply  justified,  for  if  only 
between  2  and    3    per  cent,  of  the   clergy   opposed   the 

1  Rule  of  St.  Benedict,  ch.  lxiv. 

a  P.  S3-  '  p-  io4- 


OF  SUPREMACY  AND  UNIFORMITY       189 

changes,  it  would  follow  that  an  overwhelming  majority 
"were  prepared  to  acquiesce"  in  them.  But  is  this  the  fact 
or  anything  approaching  it?  If  various  necessary  factors 
of  the  enquiry  be  taken  into  account,  it  would  seem  not  to 
be  the  case.  In  the  first  place  there  were  not  9,400  bene- 
fices in  England  and  Wales  at  that  time.  From  some  MS. 
notes  of  Lord  Burghley  in  an  atlas  that  belonged  to  him, 
taken  from  the  official  records  of  First  Fruits  and  Tenths, 
they  were  set  down  as  being  only  8,731  in  number.1  It 
should,  however,  be  noted  that  admitting  for  argument's 
sake  that  the  benefices  amounted  to  9,400,  it  by  no  means 
follows  that  the  clergy  to  possess  them  were  9,400  in 
number,  as  Bishop  Creighton  stated;  clergy  and  livings 
were  not  correlative  terms  at  that  date,  as  he  found  it 
convenient  to  assume.  When  Queen  Mary  set  about  un- 
doing the  work  of  schism  and  heresy  inaugurated  by  her 
father,  and  carried  to  greater  lengths  by  the  Protectors  of 
her  brother,  the  boy-Supreme  Head  of  the  Church  of  Eng- 
land, she  endeavoured  to  purge  the  Church  of  two  classes 
of  clergy:  (1)  those  who  had  outraged  their  solemn  obliga- 
tions by  contracting  so-called  marriages  (for  they  were  null 
and  void  in  the  canon  law);  (2)  who  had  been  ordained 
according  to  her  brother's  Ordinal,  adjudged  inadequate 
in  form.  The  result  of  this  was,  as  records  and  registers 
show,  that  an  extraordinary  change  took  place  in  the 
personnel  of  the  incumbents,  those  who  refused  to  give  up 
their  wives  being  summarily  deprived,  and  those  who  held 
livings  on  their  Edwardine  ordinations  being  ejected  as 
mere  laymen.  Their  places  were  filled  either  by  Henrician 
monastic  pensioners  or  dispossessed  chantry  priests  waiting 
to  be  absorbed  into  vacant  livings,  and  by  others  ordained 
during  her  reign ;  but  even  so,  various  returns 2  show  that 
many  livings  were  vacant  through  the  dearth  of  priests, 
and  as  a  result  many  of  the  clergy  were  of  necessity 
pluralists.    As  a  matter  of  fact  the  record  of  Elizabethan 

1  O.  R.  Lib.  18,  D.  in. 

2  E.g.,  P.R.O.  Dom.  Eliz.,  x,  passim;  XII,  No.  108;  and  those  of 
the  bishops,  already  fully  referred  to. 


i9o  THE  CLERGY  AND  THE  ACTS 

deprivations  shows  that  some  of  them  then  displaced  were 
stripped  of  the  emoluments  of  from  two  to  ten  benefices. 
Though  my  investigations  cannot  pretend  to  completeness, 
they  go  some  way  to  establish  that  at  Elizabeth's  accession 
there  could  not  have  been,  in  England  and  Wales,  more 
than  8,000  individuals  holding  preferment.  Another  ex- 
pedient adopted  by  Protestant  controversialists  to  keep 
down  the  numbers  of  those  who  suffered  loss  and  depriva- 
tion for  causes  of  religion,  is  to  eliminate  those  who  were 
not  priests,  oblivious  of  the  custom  of  conferring  benefices 
on  deacons  or  even  on  those  only  in  minor  orders.  Further, 
they  exclude  a  few  laymen  holding  University  emoluments 
such  as  fellowships  and  professorships;  but  this  is  also 
unreasonable,  inasmuch  as  such  emoluments  were  free- 
hold preferments  counted  amongst  the  9,400  benefices  to 
which  reference  has  been  made.  If  these  happened,  as  was 
the  case  in  a  few  instances,  to  be  held  by  laymen,  who 
suffered  deprivation  for  refusal  to  accept  the  parliamentary 
religion,  they  surely  have  earned  the  right  to  rank  as 
deprived.  Another  objection  raised  is,  that  those  who  took 
degrees  at  the  Universities  or  accepted  benefices  after  15  59. 
and  later  underwent  deprivation,  should  be  eliminated 
from  the  Catholic  lists,  as  it  is  assumed  that  by  accepting 
these  promotions  they  must  necessarily  have  accepted  the 
Acts  of  Supremacy  and  Uniformity,  and  have  taken  the 
oaths.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  it  is  known  that  early  in 
Elizabeth's  reign  these  oaths  were  not  strictly  enforced  in 
the  Universities,  and  non-compliance  was  openly  winked  at, 
indeed,  more  than  tolerated.  Not  all  men,  even  with 
tender  consciences,  could  at  once  adjust  their  views  on  the 
questions  then  vexing  men's  minds,  questions  which  were 
sorely  puzzling  even  deeply  learned  theologians  in  some  of 
the  intricacies  of  their  bearings.  Can  it  be  wondered  at  if 
they  waited  to  see  what  would  be  decided ;  if  they  hesi- 
tated to  commit  themselves  irrevocably  too  soon,  and  in 
hesitating  and  wavering,  sank  gradually  into  acquiescence? 
Had  the  Catholic  writers  of  the  period,  such  as  Allen, 
Persons,  Sander  or  Rishton,  foreseen  how  invaluable  would 


OF  SUPREMACY  AND  UNIFORMITY       191 

now  have  been  the  information  as  to  men  and  things  which 
they,  and  perhaps  they  alone,  could  have  furnished,  doubt- 
less they  would  have  preserved  details  which  were  then 
looked  upon  by  them  as  trivial  and  unimportant.  It  must 
also  be  remembered  that  they  passed  their  lives,  and  wrote, 
abroad,  and  hence  were  in  ignorance  of  much  that  was 
passing  in  England,  and,  in  most  instances,  of  the  men 
working  in  England.  Even  Bridgewater's  list,  it  must  be 
borne  in  mind,  was  drawn  up  a  generation  after  Elizabeth 
had  effected  the  final  severance  from  Rome;  and  thus, 
only  those  figured  in  it  who  had  somehow  become  notable 
above  their  fellows,  and  had  made  their  mark.  The  mere 
rank  and  file,  the  men  who,  as  best  befitted  the  dangerous 
times  in  which  they  lived  and  who  literally  carried  their 
lives  in  their  hands,  worked  secretly  and  silently  for  the 
purpose  of  remaining  unnoticed  and  unknown,  for  thus 
only  could  they  accomplish  their  mission.  Though  we 
learn  in  general  terms  from  Persons  of  the  "mingle- 
mangle"  which  went  on  in  so  many  parishes,  he  is  dis- 
creetly silent  as  to  place  and  incumbent  Sander  likewise 
has  told  us  that  some  incumbents,  before  performing  the 
Service  according  to  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer  in  their 
churches,  would  celebrate  Mass  in  their  own  houses  at  an 
early  hour,  and  the  staunch  Catholics  gathered  there  to 
fulfil  their  obligations  j1  but  is  also  careful  not  to  be  explicit 
as  to  who  those  priests  were.  In  a  paper  of  the  year  1596, 
the  writer  stated  that  there  were  still  at  that  date  labouring 
in  England  between  forty  and  fifty  of  the  old  Marian  clergy.2 
But  for  like  obvious  reasons,  though  he  may  have  known 
their  names,  following  the  example  of  Persons  and  Sander, 
he  withheld  them.  But  if  40  or  50  of  the  350  priests  labour- 
ing on  the  English  mission  at  the  end  of  the  sixteenth 
century  were  members  of  the  Marian  clergy,  their  number 
would  evidently  have  been  very  considerable  during  the  first 
ten  years  of  the  schism,  before  death  had  begun  to  thin  their 
ranks.    If  it  should  be  objected  that  such  statements  are 

1  Rise  and  Growth  of  the  Anglican  Schism,  ed.  1877,  P-  2°7- 

2  Records  of  English  Catholics,  Appendix,  No.  Liv. 


192  THE  CLERGY  AND  THE  ACTS 

general,  it  must  not  be  forgotten  that  the  only  chance  of 
success  in  the  dangerous  work  undertaken  by  these  priests 
layin  the  secrecy  with  which  they  surrounded  their  existence 
and  their  whereabouts.  A  priest  who  had  abandoned,  or 
been  deprived  of,  his  benefice  because  he  would  not  accept 
the  new  religion,  if  he  remained  at  large  and  in  England 
was  not  likely  to  let  it  be  publicly  known  where  he  lived, 
or  that  he  was  still  endeavouring  to  discharge  the  functions 
of  his  priesthood,  more  especially  as  the  penal  enactments 
of  the  law  made  the  punishment  so  severe  not  only  for  him, 
but  also  for  those  who  availed  themselves  of  his  ministra- 
tions.1 The  Elizabethan  bishops  tried  by  every  means  in 
their  power  to  find  out  these  "lurkers,"  but  rarely  did  suc- 
cess attend  their  endeavours.  Bishop  Cox  told  Peter 
Martyr  that  "there  is  everywhere  an  immense  number  of 
Papists,  though  for  the  most  part  concealed;  they  have 
been  quiet  hitherto,  except  that  they  are  cherishing  their 
errors  in  their  secret  assemblies.  .  .  .  The  heads  of  our 
popish  clergy  are  still  kept  in  confinement  .  .  .  others  are 
living  at  large,  scattered  about  in  different  parts  of  the 
kingdom,  but  without  any  function,  unless,  perhaps,  where 
they  may  be  sowing  the  seeds  of  fmpiety  in  secret." 2  In 
March,  I  563-4,  Jewel  says  that  he  is  troubled  "with  some 
of  the  popish  satellites,  who  are  giving  as  much  disturb- 
ance as  they  can  in  their  corners  and  hiding-places." 3  In 
the  same  year,  Whittingham,  Dean  of  Durham,  complained 
of  the  severity  shown  to  the  rising  sect  of  Puritans  and  of 
the  lenity  extended  to  the  Papists,  and  averred  that  "many 
Papists  enjoy  their  livings  and  liberty  who  have  not  sworn 
obedience."4  Cox,  writing  to  Bullinger  on  10th  July,  1570, 
shows  that  even  after  the  collapse  of  the  Northern  Rising, 
Catholics  had  not  given  up  all  hopes  of  obtaining  tolera- 
tion, for  there  were  "some  Papists,  and  those  not  of  the 
lowest  rank,  who  strain  every  nerve  that  they  may  be  per- 
mitted to  live  according  to  their  consciences,  and  that  no 

1  Cf.  Statutes  of  the  Realm,  5  Eliz.,  c.  I. 

2  1  Zur.,  No.  49,  5th  August,  1562.  n  Ibid.,  No.  66. 
1  Strype's  Parker,  vol.  iii,  p.  47,  Appendix. 


OF  SUPREMACY  AND  UNIFORMITY       193 

account  of  his  religion  be  demanded  from  anyone.  Mean- 
while many  iniquitous  practices  take  place  in  secret:"1  by 
which  the  bishop  plainly  refers  to  the  celebration  of  Mass ; 
and  writing  to  Rodolph  Gualter  on  the  12th  of  February, 
1 571-2,  he  inveighed  against  the  Puritans  and  their  secret 
conventicles,  whom  he  compared  to  the  "Papists,  who  run 
up  and  down  the  cities,  that  they  may  somewhere  or  other 
hear  Mass  in  private."2  To  show  that  matters  did  not, 
from  the  reformers'  point  of  view,  mend  in  this  respect, 
Sandys,  then  Archbishop  of  York,  may  be  quoted,  from  a 
letter  to  Gualter,  written  on  9th  December,  1579,  in  which 
he  refers  to  "■veteran  Papists  {veteranos  Pontiftcios)  who 
celebrate  their  divine  service  in  their  secret  corners."3 
Although,  of  course,  seminary  priests  were  by  that  date 
working  in  England,  the  terms  of  reference  can  apply  only 
to  the  Marian,  or  old,  clergy,  and  are  interesting  as  carrying 
on  the  chain  of  evidence. 

From  the  remains  that  have  been  preserved  to  us,  we 
know  that  the  bishops  as  a  body  were  from  the  very  be- 
ginning in  favour  of  going  to  extremities  with  those  who, 
later,  came  to  be  known  as  "  recusants."  But  Archbishop 
Parker,  tactful  and  statesmanlike,  acted  as  a  drag  upon 
their  impetuosity;  and  his  milder  and  gentler  spirit,  tem- 
pered, too,  by  a  certain  cautious  slowness,  enjoined  upon 
his  episcopal  brethren  the  need  for  a  greater  circumspection 
than  they  had  hitherto  exhibited.4 

Reverting  once  more  to  the  proceedings  of  the  Northern 
Visitation  of  1 5  59,  the  student  must  be  struck  by  the  fact  that 
stringent  measures  were  not  taken  with  all  those  who,  in 
the  words  of  the  Letters  Patent,  were  in  the  category  of 
"  obstinate  et  peremptorie  recusantes  subscribere  susceptae  re- 
ligioni."  Those  who  thus  "  flatly  and  roundly  refused  "  to 
subscribe  were  somehow  not  all  deprived.  If  example  was 
made  of  some  then  and  there,  a  greater  number  were  put 
off  for  further  consideration,  the  guilty  clergy  being  bound 

1  I  Zur.,  No.  88.  2  Ibid.,  No.  94- 

3  Ibid.,  No.  134. 

*  Cf.  Collier,  Ecclesiastical  History,  ed.  1846,  vi,  p.  359. 
O 


194  THE  CLERGY  AND  THE  ACTS 

under  recognisances  to  put  in  an  appearance,  when  and 
where  to  be  determined.  With  the  summary  stoppage  of 
the  visitation,  we  lose  sight,  in  most  cases,  of  these  recu- 
sants; but  because  their  trial  did  not  happen  to  come  to  a 
conclusion,  it  is  clear  that  they  do  not  deserve  to  be  classed 
with  those  conformists  by  conviction,  or  those  craven  spirits 
who  are  known  to  have  submitted  at  once  to  the  terms  of 
the  Act  of  Supremacy.  The  number  of  recalcitrant  clergy 
proved  to  be  so  considerable  that  it  caused  the  responsible 
rulers  to  pause  in  the  execution  of  their  first-formed  plans; 
but  many,  seeing  what  was  eventually  to  be  enforced, 
abandoned  their  livings  rather  than  await  the  onslaught 
and  its  terrifying  after-consequences,  and  thus  brought  it 
about  that  very  soon  after  the  Elizabethan  bishops  came 
into  office,  they  were  constrained  to  admit  to  the  ministry, 
to  supply  so  many  vacant  cures,  "  such  as  came  from  the 
shop,  from  the  forge,  from  the  wherry,  from  the  loom,"  and 
other  such  "unskilful"  men,  as  Calfhill,  one  of  the  re- 
formers, styled  them. 

Another  clause  in  the  Letters  Patent  defining  the  func- 
tions of  Elizabeth's  ecclesiastical  Visitors  is  worthy  of 
notice.  Just  as  Henry  VIII  had  facilitated  the  acquiescence 
of  the  monks  in  the  surrender  of  their  houses  by  the  promise 
of  pensions,  so,  to  smooth  the  way  for  the  retirement  of 
malcontents,  of  whom  it  was  not  desirable  to  make  example 
by  severity,  Cecil  empowered  the  Visitors  to  assign  to 
those  who  chose  to  "  cede  "  or  resign  their  livings  "  legiti- 
mas,congruas,  et  competentes pensiones."  This  very  important 
clause  seems  not  to  have  had  the  prominence  attached  to 
it  which  it  really  deserves,  notwithstanding  that  the  his- 
torian Burnet  fully  appreciated  its  drift.  "  The  prudence," 
he  wrote,  "  of  reserving  pensions  for  such  priests  as  were 
turned  out  was  much  applauded ;  since  thereby  they  were 
kept  from  extreme  want,  which  might  have  set  them  on  to 
do  mischief;  and  by  the  pension  which  was  granted  them 
upon  their  good  behaviour,  they  were  kept  under  some 
awe,  which  would  not  have  been  otherwise."  '  It  is  a  mere 
1  Hist,  of  Ref.,  ii,  p.  801  ;  quoted  in  Card  well,  D.  A.,  i,  p.  217. 


OF  SUPREMACY  AND  UNIFORMITY       195 

detail  that  there  is  no  evidence  of  the  "  applause  "  showered 
on  this  scheme,  nor  of  the  effects  it  is  supposed  to  have 
wrought  in  keeping  the  recipients  "  under  some  awe  " ;  but 
many  of  the  remarkable  number  of  resignations  which  took 
place  at  this  precise  period  may  with  fair  show  of  reason  be 
ascribed  to  this  inducement.  It  may  be  questioned,  how- 
ever, in  the  absence  of  documentary  evidence,  whether,  on 
after  reflection,  those  who  had  thus  qualified  for  them, 
applied  for  or  received  those  pensions.  The  motive  of  such 
abstention  would  be  obvious;  the  whereabouts  of  the  pen- 
sioners would  be  known,  and  there  would  always  remain 
the  contingent  likelihood  of  the  proffer  of  the  oath  of 
Supremacy. 

Considerations  such  as  those  above  rehearsed  may,  partly 
at  least,  account  for  the  regrettable  scantiness  of  our  in- 
formation concerning  the  results  of  the  visitation  of  the 
Province  of  Canterbury.  Mr.  Richard  Simpson  many  years 
ago  suggested  a  possible  means  of  supplying  this  defect. 
He  had  observed  that  the  changes  in  the  personnel  of  the 
clergy  seemed  to  be  quite  phenomenal  during  the  first  few 
years  of  Elizabeth's  reign,  and  realising  that  an  adequate 
explanation  of  this  "  movement "  in  the  ranks  of  the  incumb- 
ents was  called  for,  suggested  that  a  detailed  examination 
of  the  lists  of  rectors  and  vicars  of  the  several  parishes 
throughout  England  and  Wales,  such  as  are  usually  found 
for  each  parish  in  good  county  histories,  might,  perhaps, 
furnish  a  portion  at  least  of  the  information  sought.1  I 
have  endeavoured  to  carry  out  his  idea,  and  in  the  course 
of  my  investigation  have  had  occasion  to  consult  not  only 
hundreds,  but  thousands  of  county  and  local  histories  and 
topographical  collections.  These  works,  of  course,  vary 
greatly  in  merit  and  completeness  from  the  point  of  view 
indicated,  hence  my  survey  remains  still  imperfect,  for  only 
thirty  counties  of  the  Canterbury  Province  are  represented, 
and  several  even  of  those  in  a  fragmentary  manner.2  Manu- 

'  Cf.  Life  of  Campion,  p.  523,  note  138. 

2  Rev.  F.  W.  Weaver's  Somersetshire  Incumbents  is  a  model  of  re- 
search in  this  field  of  enquiry,  and  has  proved  helpful ;  so  also  Rev. 


196  THE  CLERGY  AND  THE  ACTS 

script  sources  are  of  course  plentiful  but  uncertain,  extracts 
of  registers  have  occasionally  proved  of  some  use,  while 
the  Record  Office  papers  have,  here  and  there,  often 
merely  incidentally,  furnished  valuable  information.  Un- 
fortunately, where  the  searcher  would  naturally  look  for 
most  light,  there  least  help  has  been  forthcoming — in 
episcopal  registers.  These  records  have  been  in  several 
instances  either  badly  or  inadequately  posted  up,  or  in 
many  cases  they  have  been  lost,  or  at  least  their  present 
location  is  unknown.  A  special  cause  of  exasperation  is 
found  in  the  fact  that  they  fail,  not  as  a  whole,  but  pre- 
cisely at  the  period  when  their  help,  for  the  purposes  of 
this  enquiry,  would  have  been  most  valuable.1 

Mr.  Gee,  in  the  course  of  his  enquiry,  somewhat  arbi- 
trarily limited  it  to  the  end  of  1564.  As  the  cause  of 
deprivation,  however,  after  that  date  might  possibly  be 
found  in  Puritan  rather  than  in  Papist  tendencies,  it  may  be 
well  in  the  present  enquiry  to  accept  that  limit  in  practice 
though  not  in  principle,  and  not  to  travel  beyond  1565  in 
our  search  for  "  movement." 

Many  difficulties  beset  the  determination  of  cases  of 
deprivation.  Thus,  in  the  instructions  to  her  Visitors,  Eliza- 
beth had  empowered  them  "  ad  .  .  .  causas  deprivationum 
examinandum,  et  cotitra  statuta  et  ordinationes  hujus  regni 
nostri  Angliae  vel  juris  ecclesiastici ordinem  deprivatos  resti- 

Geo.  Hennessy's  edition  of  Newcourt's  Novtim  Repertorium  Eccle- 
siasticum  Parochiale  Londinense,  1 898. 

1  As  Rev.  Mr.  Gee's  experience  coincides  with  mine,  he  may  suit- 
ably be  quoted  in  support  of  my  statement.  f  The  records  required," 
he  says,  "  have  disappeared  entirely  in  the  dioceses  of  Bristol,  Bangor, 
Llandaff,  St.  Asaph.  At  Lincoln  there  is  a  lamentable  gap  from  1547 
to  1595.  At  York  the  usual  register  appears  to  be  wanting  for  the 
critical  years  1558  to  1565.  .  .  .  Happily  the  lacuna  is  made  up  to 
some  extent  by  two  books  of  institutions,  the  one  labelled  1547-1553, 
the  other  1 553-1571.  In  the  latter,  however,  there  is  a  gap  from  Sept- 
ember, 1558,  to  May  24,  1561.  At  Worcester  there  is  a  curious  omission 
of  all  entries  between  November,  1563,  and  the  year  1 571.  At  Ely 
there  is  no  record  between  June,  1559,  and  October,  1562.  The  same 
is  true  of  Carlisle  between  November,  1558,  and  1 561  "  {The  Eliza- 
bethan Clergy,  p.  237). 


OF  SUPREMACY  AND  UNIFORMITY       197 

tuendum"  that  is,  to  restore  to  their  livings  those  clergy 
who  had  been  deprived  by  her  sister.  The  canonical  action 
of  the  Marian  bishops  in  the  case  of  married  clergy  or  those 
ordained  under  the  Edwardine  ordinal  was  accounted 
irregular,  and  on  that  plea  those  who  had  been  thus  ejected 
were,  in  numerous  instances,  restored.  The  extant  episcopal 
registers  of  that  date  rarely  contain  any  formal  record  of 
the  change  of  incumbent  ascribable  to  this  particular  cause.1 
The  Marian  appointment  was  apparently  ignored  and 
treated  as  non-existent;  the  de  facto  holder  of  the  benefice 
was  ousted  as  an  intruder  with  no  rights,  and  the  former 
Edwardine  occupant  as  dejure  possessor,  reinstated.  Pro- 
testant writers  ignore  the  claim  of  these  ousted  Marian 
priests  to  be  ranked  amongst  the  deprived ;  but  with  strange 
inconsistency  admit  in  the  lists  of  acknowledged  deprived 
clergy,  many  who  were  forced  to  give  up  their  livings  to 
Edwardine  predecessors.  I  have  collected  ninety-six  such 
cases;  and  here  it  may  be  well  to  state  that,  including 
these  gathered  from  the  various  printed  and  manuscript 
sources  already  indicated,  I  have  the  names  of  over  700 
holders  of  benefices  who  underwent  deprivation  before  the 
end  of  1565. 

But  as  has  already  been  pointed  out,  the  catalogue  of 
deprived  incumbents  does  not  end  the  difficulties.  There  are 
in  addition  a  very  large  body  of  men  about  whom  more 
definite  particulars  than  we  at  present  possess  would  be  in 
every  respect  desirable.  The  number  of  resignations  during 
the  period  selected  seems  to  be  out  of  all  proportion  to 
those  registered  during  any  similar  space  of  time.  Thus  in 
the  years  from  Elizabeth's  accession  till  the  end  of  1580  I 
have  collected  particulars  referring  to  over  700  livings, 
representing  over  1,800  presentations  to  vacancies  occurring 
during  that  time,  concerning  all  of  which  precise  and  de- 
tailed information  is  wanting.  But  the  salient  feature  is 
this,  that  the  vacancies  during  the  first  seven  years  exceed 
in  number  those  of  the  fifteen  years  next  following,  and  the 
resignations  are  so  numerous  and  so  frequent  that  there 
1  P.R.O.  Dom.  Eliz.,  vol.  x,  furnishes  a  few  examples. 


198  THE  CLERGY  AND  THE  ACTS 

must  be  some  reason  for  them  other  than  promotion,  more 
especially  as  the  particular  instances  here  referred  to  con- 
cern only  those  livings,  the  incumbents  of  which  I  have  not 
hitherto  been  able  to  trace  in  the  possession  of  any  other 
benefice.  As  a  concrete  example,  take  the  diocese  of  Bath 
and  Wells.  At  the  commencement  of  Elizabeth's  reign  this 
diocese  comprised  382  parishes.  The  register  of  Bishop 
Berkeley,  the  first  Elizabethan  prelate,  covering  the  period 
from  26th  April,  1560,  to  28th  October,  1581,1  contains 
623  entries,  of  which  all  but  thirteen  are  institutions  to 
vacant  benefices.  During  these  twenty-two  years,  therefore, 
there  were  610  vacancies  provided  for.  For  purposes  of 
comparison,  an  average  of  yearly  institutions  may  be  taken 
from  the  register  of  another  episcopate  covering  a  some- 
what equal  period  of  time,  but  one  not  marked  by  such 
unrest.2  Bishop  John  Clerk  presided  over  the  western 
See  for  eighteen  years,  from  1523  to  1541.  His  register 
records  235  institutions,  giving  an  average  of  thirteen 
a  year.  During  the  eight  months  from  the  opening  of 
Bishop  Berkeley's  register  to  the  end  of  1560,  there  were 
thirty  institutions,  or  at  the  rate  of  forty-five  for  one  year. 
In  1 561  thirty-two  are  recorded,  and  they  rise  to  thirty- 
nine  in  1562.  A  drop  to  twenty  in  1563  is  a  prelude  to  a 
rise  of  thirty-two  in  1564  and  1570,  thirty-six  in  1572,  and 
thirty-four  in  1574  and  1577,  while  during  the  intervening 
years  the  average  keeps  well  above  twenty,  and  the  general 
yearly  average  is  twenty-eight,  or  more  than  double  that 
of  the  earlier  episcopate.  An  examination  of  other  registers, 
or  other  lists  of  institutions  will  reveal  not  dissimilar 
results,  proving  that  the  "  movement"  of  incumbents  in  the 
early  years  of  the  Elizabethan  regime  was  abnormal.  But 
in  striving  to  fathom  the  causes,  the  lack  of  detail  at  once 
baffles  the  enquirer.  In  the  diocese  of  Bath  and  Wells  there 
are  seventy-four  instances  of  vacation  of  livings  during  the 
first  fifteen  years  of  Elizabeth's  reign,  in  no  one  of  which  is 
any  reason  vouchsafed.    Of  these  seventy-four,  thirty  may 

1  For  Hutton's  transcript  of  this,  cf.  Harl.  MS.  6967. 

2  Cf.  F.  W.  Weaver,  Somerset  Incumbents. 


OF  SUPREMACY  AND  UNIFORMITY       199 

be  put  aside  on  the  score  that  they  entered  on  their  cures 
after  Elizabeth's  accession,  though  thirteen,  judging  from 
the  dates  of  their  induction,  would  probably  have  been 
Marian  priests.  Of  the  remaining  forty-four,  all  inducted 
during  Mary's  reign,  nineteen  replaced  clergy  deprived 
either  for  marriage  or  defective  Orders.  The  presumption 
is,  therefore,  that  they  were  sound  Catholics,  and  that  on 
Elizabeth's  accession  their  predecessors  were  restored,  and 
they  themselves  ejected  as  unlawful  possessors,  without  any 
legal  form  of  deprivation.  A  further  feature  presents  itself 
in  this  list.  In  thirty-three  cases,  not  only  is  no  reason 
given  for  the  voidance  of  a  living,  but  the  date  of  institu- 
tion of  the  successors  of  those  so  voiding  is  wanting.  The 
probabilities  favour  the  supposition  that  these  clergymen 
left  their  livings  without  going  through  any  legal  form  of 
resignation;  or,  in  plain  terms,  that  they  abandoned  their 
cures. 

Another  difficulty  besets  the  path  of  enquirers  in  this 
field  of  research.  It  is  the  persistent  recurrence  of  gaps  in 
registers  or  in  lists  of  incumbents,  and  precisely  covering 
the  particular  period  now  under  survey.  It  is  not  pretended 
that  gaps  do  not  occur  at  other  periods ;  but  it  may  safely  be 
said  that  at  no  other  period  are  they  so  prevalent  through- 
out the  length  and  breadth  of  the  land.  Reference  to  any 
county  history  will  furnish  evidence  of  this.  Consult,  for 
instance,  Clutterbuck's  Hertfordshire.  In  that  one  county 
alone,  of  no  great  extent,  thirty-five  parishes  show  lacunae 
in  the  lists  of  their  incumbents  just  for  this  period,  rang- 
ing from  1540  to  the  close  of  the  century.  The  diocese  of 
Bath  and  Wells  offers  no  exception  to  this  unfortunate 
lack  of  information  just  at  the  very  period  when  it  could  be 
wished  that  documentary  evidence  should  be  as  complete 
as  possible.  The  lacunae  in  the  registers  of  this  diocese, 
with  which  we  may  legitimately  deal,  number  ninety-one, 
divisible  into  two  separate  categories  comprising  respect- 
ively forty  and  fifty-one  cases. 

It  is  a  matter  of  common  knowledge  that  the  average 
length  of  life  was  shorter  in  Tudor  times  than  it  is  to-day, 


200  THE  CLERGY  AND  THE  ACTS 

and  was,  indeed,  considerably  under  sixty  years.  But 
fixing  it  at  that  figure,  it  would  be  safe  to  say  that,  allow- 
ing for  exceptions,  no  incumbency  would  exceed  a  stretch 
of  thirty-five  years.  In  fact,  taking  thirty  cases  from  the 
registers  at  haphazard,  all  belonging  to  the  period  under 
discussion,  but  confining  the  selection  to  those  who  died 
incumbents,  the  average  tenure  works  out  at  12.5  years. 
The  limit  of  thirty-five  years  here  suggested  is,  therefore,  a 
generous  one.  The  first  category  of  lacunae  comprises  the 
cases  in  which  the  last  incumbents  registered  before  Eliza- 
beth's accession  were  inducted  thirty-five  or  more  years 
before  that  event,  that  is,  before  1523.  The  second  list 
contains  those  who  were  inducted  in  or  after  1523,  up  to 
Mary's  accession,  only  three,  indeed,  acquiring  benefices  so 
late  as  during  Edward's  reign.  These  ninety-one  institu- 
tions have  no  assignable  cause  for  termination,  either  by  re- 
signation, deprivation,  death,  or  otherwise ;  they  are  simply 
followed  by  the  next  institution,  or  by  the  next  cause  of 
voidance  in  Elizabeth's  reign. 

To  each  of  the  livings  in  the  first  category,  to  which  the 
previous  institutions  were  made  before  1523,  it  is  morally 
certain  that  another  institution  must  have  been  made 
before  1559.  When  did  this  take  place;  and, more  import- 
ant still,  when  and  for  what  reason  did  it  terminate?  In 
eight  cases  the  recorded  successors  were  appointed  (or 
vacated)  between  1559  and  the  end  of  1564.  In  default  of 
proof  to  the  contrary,  there  is  no  reason  for  supposing  the 
previous  voidances  or  resignations  would  have  taken  place 
but  for  the  religious  upheaval  of  the  period;  further,  till 
proof  to  the  contrary  is  produced,  the  holders  of  livings, 
whoever  they  were,  should  be  considered  as  being  in  sym- 
pathy with  the  settlement  as  it  was  when  they  were 
enjoying  their  benefices:  i.e.,  they  should  be  accounted 
Papists. 

The  second  section,  containing  fifty-one  names  of  those 
collated  in  or  after  1523,  also  provides  matter  for  specula- 
tion. The  gaps  in  several  instances  cover  so  long  a  period 
of  time  as  to  necessitate  the  presumption  of  at  least  one  in- 


OF  SUPREMACY  AND  UNIFORMITY       201 

termediate  institution.  But  assuming  that  all  the  fifty-one 
priests  concerned  could,  possibly,  have  held  their  livings 
from  the  dates  of  their  respective  institutions  up  to  Eliza- 
beth's accession,  it  is  remarkable  that  vacancies  occur  from 
1 559  to  the  end  of  1564  in  twelve  cases,  of  which  one  is 
attributed  to  deprivation,  and  four  to  death. 

It  will  be  realised  from  the  above  enumeration  of  diffi- 
culties, that  it  is  no  easy  thing  to  determine  this  question 
of  acquiescence  and  recalcitrance,  as  affecting  the  voidance 
of  preferments  in  the  Church.  Resignation  of  a  living  may 
have  been  made  for  the  sake  of  a  pension ;  but  as  has  been 
seen,  this  cause  seems  to  have  been  rare  indeed.  Or  it 
might  have  been  for  promotion ;  in  which  case  the  incum- 
bent shows  himself  as  having  accepted  the  new  order. 
Within  the  limits  of  a  county,  or  preferably  of  a  diocese,  it 
is  sometimes  easy  to  trace  a  man's  career  from  his  ordina- 
tion to  his  death;  but,  generally  speaking,  it  has  proved  a 
matter  of  chance  whether  an  individual  vacating  a  living 
in  the  years  from  1559  to  1565  will  turn  up  elsewhere.  In 
the  vast  majority  of  cases  that  have  been  dealt  with,  their 
names  disappear  altogether.  Where  no  reason  for  void- 
ance is  given,  a  choice  is  left  between  death  and  resignation 
for  one  or  other  of  the  causes  enumerated.  Death  can  be 
invoked  in  a  fixed  proportion  of  cases  to  be  determined  by 
the  ordinary  rules  employed  by  an  actuary.  But  after  eli- 
minating this  proportion,  the  residue  has  still  to  be  ac- 
counted for.  My  own  investigations  have  furnished  me 
with  1,934  names  of  those  who  "disappeared"  between 
June,  1559,  and  the  end  of  1565.  Not  more  than  five  per 
cent,  per  annum  can  have  died.  It  is  of  importance  to 
note,  too,  that  fully  three-fifths  of  these  priests  had  been 
collated  to  their  livings  in  Mary's  reign,  most  of  them  in 
the  years  1554,  1555,  when  the  greatest  activity  was  being 
displayed  in  purging  the  Church  of  unworthy  priests,  or  ot 
those  whose  Orders  were  deemed  deficient,  thus  furnishing 
a  clue  to  their  convictions,  and  accounting  possibly  for  a 
voidance  on  their  parts  to  detach  themselves  from  the  new 
order  inaugurated  in  1559.    It  has  been  suggested  by  Mr. 


202  THE  CLERGY  AND  THE  ACTS 

Gee  that  many  of  the  deprivations  effected  in  1 562-5  ought 
not  to  be  reckoned,  since  those  thus  ejected  must  have 
conformed  in  1559.  Such  an  argument  has  little  weight, 
for  it  precludes  the  contingency  of  a  change  of  mental  atti- 
tude. Matters  were  so  shifting  and  unstable  in  those  days, 
religious  changes  had  been  so  frequent,  that  men  might  be 
pardoned  if  they  decided  to  bend  like  reeds  before  a  storm, 
rather  than  play  the  part  of  the  oak  which  in  withstanding 
the  tempest  is  shivered  to  atoms.  Such  an  attitude  it  must 
be  allowed,  is  far  from  being  heroic  ;  but  alas!  it  is  human, 
and  as  such  it  must  be  taken  into  account.  Lastly,  it 
must  not  be  forgotten  that  many  of  these  voidances  may 
have  been  for  promotion,  and,  therefore,  that  the  clergy  in 
such  cases  had  conformed.  Allowing  as  much  as  30  per 
cent,  to  cover  such  a  category,  there  remain  1,175  cases  still 
unexplained.  Of  these,  the  notes  already  referred  to  show 
that  124  are  definitely  known  to  have  gone  abroad  (in- 
dependent of  deprived  priests  who  may  have  done  so); 
while  198  are  also  known  to  have  resigned  in  obedience  to 
conscience.  The  remaining  853  may  well  represent  (the 
priests  who  were  lurking  in  holes  and  corners  up  and  down 
England  and  Wales,  ministering  as  they  best  could  to 
those  of  their  former  flocks  who  remained  staunch,  and 
for  years  proving  such  a  source  of  anxiety  to  the  Eliza- 
bethan prelates.  Though  this  sounds  a  large  number,  it 
works  out  at  fifteen  for  each  county;  and  though  fifteen 
might  be  too  many  to  expect  to  find  in  Rutlandshire,  fifty 
or  sixty  would,  in  the  circumstances,  not  be  too  many  to 
assign  to  such  counties  as  Yorkshire  or  Lancashire.1  These 
clergy,  as  we  know,  acting  as  school-masters  or  disguised  as 
physicians  and  artisans  earning  their  livelihood,  contrived 
to  help  their  distressed  brethren,  and  did  their  best  to  keep 

1  Cf.  P.R.O.  Dom.  Eliz.,  xxxi,  No.  47,  ?  1563.  This  document 
furnishes  a  detailed  account  of  certain  of  the  parishes  of  Lancashire. 
The  summary  with  which  it  concludes  is  as  follows:  "In  all  the 
deaneries  there  are  102,500  communicants,  56  churches,  34  Dtimb 
dogs  [?  Papists\  6  insufficient  preachers,  6  preachers  non-resident,  3 
preachers  not  painful,  one  preacher  infirmed,  and  7  able  and  painful 
preachers." 


OF  SUPREMACY  AND  UNIFORMITY       203 

alight  the  lamp  of  Faith.1  But  the  student  will  not  fail  to 
realise  that  the  700  deprived,  and  the  1,175  who  aban- 
doned their  livings  for  conscience'  sake — 1,875  in  all — 
offer  a  different  aspect  to  that  imagined  by  Camden,  and 
afford  a  percentage  of  irreconcileables  much  more  reason- 
able and  more  in  accordance  with  the  probabilities  of  the 
case,  than  that  usually  presented.  With  these  figures,  that 
is  1,875  out  of  8,000,  the  percentage  falls  not  far  short 
of  twenty-five,  thus  justifying  Mr.  Simpson's  estimate 
formed  many  years  ago.  The  figures  here  given  are,  as 
already  stated,  incomplete ;  but  even  this  partial  and 
tentative  conclusion  differs  but  little  from  Mr.  Simpson's, 
that  the  number  of  clergy  who  abandoned  their  livings 
from  conscientious  inability  to  conform  would  prove  to 
be  about  2,000,  or  one  quarter  of  all  the  priests  then 
beneficed. 

Something  must  here  be  said  about  the  visitation  of 
Eton  College  in  1561,  and  the  purgation  from  Popery 
which  it  then  underwent,  for  it  serves  to  disprove  the 
assertions  of  more  than  one  writer  that  at  the  commence- 
ment of  Elizabeth's  reign  only  the  prominent  churchmen,  as 
bishops,  deans,  and  heads  of  colleges,  were  displaced;  it 
further  emphasises  some  of  the  difficulties  to  which  refer- 
ence has  been  made. 

Amongst  the  heads  of  colleges  displaced  in  1559  was 
Dr.  Henry  Cole,  who,  together  with  other  preferments  from 
which  he  was  then  summarily  ejected,  was  also  deprived  of 
the  Provostship  of  Eton  College.  His  place  was  taken  by 
Dr.  William  Bill,  who  was  an  adherent  of  the  new  order, 
but  he  died  on  15th  July,  1561.  The  members  of  the 
royal  College  took  the  choice  of  a  successor  into  their  own 
hand,  and  without  waiting  for  the  customary  conge  d'e'lire,2 
or  for  any  intimation  of  the  royal  wishes,  proceeded  to  fill 
up  the  vacancy  by  electing  Richard  Bruerne  {or  Brewarne), 
who  was,  at  least  at  that  period,  certainly  a  Catholic.  Such 

1  Cf.  Cotton  MS.  Vitellius  C  i,  No.  12,  f.  118,  sqq. 
a  P.R.O.  Dom.  Eliz.,  xxi,  No.  30.    The  Queen  to  Abp.  Parker,  22nd 
August,  1 561. 


204  THE  CLERGY  AND  THE  ACTS 

an  act  is  eloquent  of  the  sympathies  of  the  College  elector- 
ate at  that  date,  and  disposes  of  the  fiction  that  the  oath 
of  Supremacy  must  necessarily  have  been  administered  in 
1559.  But  bold  and  independent  action  like  this  could  not 
be  suffered  to  go  unchecked.  Bishop  Grindal  wrote  strongly 
to  Sir  William  Cecil,  exclaiming  against  the  contumacy 
exhibited  by  the  Fellows,  and  urging  a  visitation  to  en- 
quire into  and  set  aside  as  irregular  the  election  of  one 
who  was  doubtless  looked  upon  as  most  unsuitable  for  the 
post  of  Provost.1  As  the  result  of  his  and  Archbishop 
Parker's  representations,  commissioners  were  sent  down 
to  hold  an  enquiry,  and  the  visitation  occupied  from  9th  to 
nth  September,  1 561.  As  regards  the  Provost,  when 
Bruerne  realised  that  he  was  likely  to  be  deprived,  he 
forestalled  this  ending  by  a  voluntary  (?)  resignation, 
securing  for  himself  thereby  a  pension  of  .£10  a  year  out 
of  the  College  funds.  The  whole  process  of  the  visitation 
was  drawn  up  by  the  registrar  to  the  commissioners;2 
and  from  this  document  it  would  seem  that  on  10th  Sept- 
ember the  oath  of  Supremacy  was  formally  tendered  to 
two  only  of  the  Fellows.  It  was  accepted  by  one  of  them, 
Nicholas  Smith,  but  Thomas  Thurston  flatly  refused  it — 
expresse  recusavit  juramentum  hujusmodi  praestare.  Mr. 
Maxwell  Lyte,  in  his  History  of  Eton  College*  says: 
"Three  Fellows,  Kirton,  Ashbrooke  and  Pratt,  and  one  of 
the  chaplains  named  Leg,  did  not  appear,  and  were  ac- 
cordingly deprived  of  their  places  for  contumacy.  The 
like  penalty  was  inflicted   on  John   Durston,  one  of  the 

1  P.R.O.  Dom.  Eliz.,  xix,  No.  18,  nth  August,  1561.  The  passage 
referred  to  is  to  be  found  in  a  postscript.  The  letter  is  printed  in 
Grindal's  Remains,  p.  244,  but  the  postscript  is  there  entirely  omitted. 

2  Harl.  MS.  791,  f.  1,  sqq.;  also  printed  at  length  in  Messrs.  Hay- 
wood and  Wright's  Statutes  of  King's  College,  Ca?nbridge,  pp.  634-8. 

3  P.  162.  It  will  be  noticed  that  Mr.  Maxwell  Lyte  speaks  of  John 
Durston,  a  Fellow,  as  being  deprived,  whereas  the  register  refers  to 
Thomas  Thurston.  This  is  probably  due  to  some  slight  confusion  of 
names,  arising  from  the  fact  that  at  that  date  amongst  the  chaplains 
was  one  Thurston,  whose  Christian  name  does  not  appear,  but  it  may 
have  been  Thomas. 


OF  SUPREMACY  AND  UNIFORMITY      205 

Fellows,  who  though  he  answered  to  his  name,  refused  to 
acknowledge  the  royal  Supremacy."  The  non-appearance 
of  the  three  contumacious  Fellows  is  rightly  ascribed  by 
Messrs.  Haywood  and  Wright  to  their  religious  con- 
victions; for,  in  discussing  the  episode  in  the  preface  to 
their  work  already  referred  to,1  they  say:  "Eton  College 
was  subjected  to  a  visitation  in  1561  which  led  to  the 
expulsion  of  its  Roman  Catholic  members."  That  this 
was  really  the  case  may  be  gathered  from  the  Acts  of  the 
visitation.  These  Acts  further  say  that  Thomas  Kirton, 
John  Ashbrooke,  Richard  Pratt,  John  Durston,  Fellows,  and 
Reginald  Legge,  a  "conduct"  or  chaplain  of  the  College, 
were  "removed  from  all  right  title  and  room,"  and  the 
Visitors  "pronounced  and  declared  them  to  be  held  and 
considered  as  removed  and  expelled  for  ever."  2 

This  is  the  official  record.  In  possession  of  its  terms,  we 
are  in  a  position  to  appreciate  the  confusion  and  con- 
tradiction in  the  narration  of  these  events  as  found  in 
letters  written  at  the  very  time  by  the  actual  persons  who 
passed  these  sentences.  Owing  to  the  fact  that  in  these 
letters  names  are  not  mentioned,  we  are  at  a  loss  for  proof 
that  those  named  in  the  registrar's  report  are  the  same 
individuals  referred  to  by  Archbishop  Parker,  Bishop  Home, 
and  Sir  Anthony  Coke.  These  three  Visitors  wrote  a  joint 
letter  to  Sir  William  Cecil  on  10th  September,  and  thus 
described  their  doings.  After  telling  him  of  Bruerne's  resign- 
ation, which  forestalled  their  avowed  intention  of  depriving 
him,  they  proceed:  "As  for  some  of  the  Society,  utterly 
denying  or  refusing  to  acquit  their  duty  to  the  Prince, 
and  to  accept  the  order  of  Prayer  now  established,  we 
have  deprived ;  and  some  others  frowardly  absenting  them- 
selves at  the  time  and  for  other  demeanours  we  have  sus- 
pended, by  decree,  from  all  commodities  of  the  House, 
leaving  yet  sufficient  persons  of  that  Society  to  oversee 
the  state  of  the  House."3  If  the  phrasing  of  the  decree, 
already  quoted,  be  borne  in  mind,  it  will  be  observed  that 

1  P.  xi.  2  Original  in  Latin. 

3  Harl.  MS.  7047,  No.  5. 


206  THE  CLERGY  AND  THE  ACT 

no  mention  was  made  of  suspension;  only  of  deprivation. 
On  the  following  day  Archbishop  Parker  wrote  to  Cecil 
on  his  own  account,  and  stated  that  "Three  Fellows  we 
have  left  there  for  the  necessary  preservance  of  the  state  of 
the  College  till  the  rooms  be  supplied  " ;  and  in  a  postscript 
is  added:  "Three  contemptuously  absent  we  have  by 
decree  suspended  from  all  interest  in  that  House,  not  pro- 
ceeding yet  to  the  flat  sentence  of  deprivation,  upon  policy 
and  law,  and  one  recusant  (Durston)  is  after  Michaelmas 
fully  deprived."  At  that  date  the  College  consisted  of  Pro- 
vost, Vice-Provost,  six  Fellows,  an  "  informator  puerorum," 
the  "ostiarius  sive  hipodidascalus,"  six  conducts  or  chap- 
lains, four  clerks  or  cantors,  and  a  notary — twenty-one  in 
all.  As  the  Visitors  do  not  specifically  name  those  they  refer 
to,  the  possibility  remains  that  those  they  "suspended" 
may  be  other  than  the  five  named  by  the  registrar  as 
"deprived":  "removed  and  expelled  for  ever."  But  in 
view  of  this  contemporary  confusion,  suggesting  that  com- 
plete accuracy  was  apparently  unattainable  even  at  the 
very  date  the  events  referred  to  were  occurring,  it  is  small 
cause  for  wonder  if  finality  should  be  impossible  of  attain- 
ment three  hundred  years  later,  even  with  the  help  of  the 
care  and  minuteness  of  modern  research. 


ry  Walker  phott 


NICHOLAS  HEATH 

ARCHBISHOP  OF  YORK  AM)  LORD  CHANCELLOR  OF  ENGLAND 


CHAPTER  VI 

THE  OLD  EPISCOPATE  AND  THE  NEW 

THE  opposition  offered  during  the  session  of  Elizabeth's 
first  Parliament  to  the  work  of  the  reformation  by  the 
bishops,  the  natural  guardians  of  the  Faith,  was  powerless 
to  stem  the  torrent  of  change.  There  remained  for  them, 
however,  the  opportunity  of  exhibiting  an  example  of  fear- 
less confession,  and  a  readiness  to  suffer  any  extremity, 
even,  if  need  be,  death,  as  a  protest  against  innovations,  as 
a  gage  of  their  fidelity  to  their  trust,  and  as  an  earnest  of 
their  inviolable  union  with  the  centre  of  unity,  the  Vicar  of 
Christ. 

Even  before  Parliament  came  to  an  end,  two  of  their 
number  had  found  their  way  to  prison  on  various  pretexts. 
White  of  Winchester,  for  his  boldness  when  preaching  at 
Queen  Mary's  obsequies,  was  sent  to  the  Tower;  but  it  is 
not  proposed  to  lay  any  stress  on  that  imprisonment,  since 
the  truth  or  falsehood  of  the  charge  that  his  discourse 
contained  covert  seditious  allusions  is  not  here  in  question. 
He  had  not  been  long  released,  however,  from  that  first 
detention,  when  he  again  incurred  displeasure,  this  time 
by  the  vehemence  of  his  utterances  at  the  Westminster  Con- 
ference; he  therefore,  in  company  with  Thomas  Watson, 
Bishop  of  Lincoln,  was  lodged  in  the  Tower. 

But  at  the  close  of  the  session,  8th  May,  1559,  the  whole 
bench  of  bishops  were  confronted  with  immediate  and  per- 
sonal danger  to  liberty  and  even  to  life.  A  sure  weapon 
lay  ready  to  hand  against  them  in  the  Act  of  Supremacy 
with  the  oath  for  its  acceptance,  which  might  be  tendered 
at  any  moment.  An  equally  crucial  test  was  contained  in 
,  207 


208     THE  OLD  EPISCOPATE  AND  THE  NEW 

the  Act  of  Uniformity.  There  still  remained  a  respite  of 
seven  weeks  from  the  operation  of  the  latter  Act,  during 
which  time  they  might  have  reviewed  the  situation  and 
have  concerted  a  common  plan  of  action;  but  as  the 
former  Act  became  operative  at  once,  their  enemies  were 
determined  that  the  storm  should  not  be  long  in  breaking 
upon  them.  On  23rd  May  the  Queen  issued  a  commission 
to  eighteen  lay  peers,  noblemen  and  knights,  conferring 
plenary  powers  upon  them  to  administer  the  oath  of 
Supremacy  to  all  bishops  and  ecclesiastical  persons,  and 
all  lay  persons  holding  offices,  under  pain,  on  refusing  to 
take  it,  of  deprivation  of  office.1 

The  Act  of  Supremacy  had  become  law  by  royal  assent 
on  8th  May,  1559;  on  10th  May  II  Schifanoya  wrote  that 
"the  bishops,  deans,  and  other  prelates  and  beneficed 
clergy  will  likewise  be  confirmed,  if  they  will  take  the  oath 
against  the  Pope  and  against  their  consciences.  From 
what  I  hear  there  will  be  few  who  will  do  so,  the  greater 
part  of  them  having  determined  rather  to  lose  all  and  even 
die  if  need  be."  2  That  this  was  not  an  impossible  con- 
tingency may  be  inferred  from  the  temper  displayed  by 
some  of  their  enemies.  Thus  Parkhurst  (soon  to  become 
Bishop  of  Norwich),  writing  on  21st  May,  1559,  to  Bullinger, 
said  of  them:  "They  are  worthy  of  being  suspended,  not 
only  from  their  office,  but  from  a  halter."  3  Grindal,  too, 
writing  on  23rd  May,  said:  "It  is  therefore  commonly 
supposed  that  almost  all  the  bishops,  and  also  many  other 
beneficed  persons,  will  renounce  their  bishoprics  and  their 
functions,  as  being  ashamed,  after  so  much  tyranny  and 
cruelty  exercised  under  the  banners  of  the  Pope,  and  the 
obedience  so  lately  sworn  to  him,  to  be  again  brought  to  a 
recantation,  and  convicted  of  a  manifest  perjury."4 

1  Rymer,  Foedera,  xv,  p.  518. 

2  Venetian  Papers,  No.  71,  10th  May,  1559. 

3  Digni,  qui  non  solum  ab  officio,  sed  et  capistro  suspendantur,  I  Zur., 
p.  30,  No.  12. 

4  11  Zur.,  p.  19,  No.  8,  23rd  May,  1559.  Grindal  to  Conrad 
Hubert. 


THE  OLD  EPISCOPATE  AND  THE  NEW     209 

Collier,'  following  Strype  and  other  earlier  writers,  chroni- 
cles  with  some  minuteness  (giving  the  gist  of  speeches, 
etc.),  a  supposed  interview  said  to  have  taken  place  between 
Queen  Elizabeth  and  the  bishops.  Some  writers,  Strype 
for  example,  have  mentioned  1 5th  May  as  the  date  on  which 
this  meeting  took  place;  others  say  it  occurred  fourteen 
days  after  the  dissolution  of  Parliament:  but  FF.  Bridgett 
and  Knox 2  show  that  no  contemporary  writer  mentions  the 
incident,  which  first  appeared  in  1683  in  The  Hunting  of 
the  Romish  Fox.  Such  discredit  attaches,  however,  to  the 
veracity  and  reliability  of  Robert  Ware,  its  author,  as  to 
th  row  suspicion  on  the  story  of  a  special  interview  unless 
substantiated  by  better  and  contemporary  authority.  For 
the  present  the  special  interview  may  be  dismissed  as 
apocryphal.  But  the  Count  de  Feria,  writing  on  10th  May 
to  King  Philip,  stated  that  "In  the  presence  of  the  Queen, 
he  who  holds  the  office  of  Chancellor  [Nicholas  Bacon] 
told  the  bishops  that  none  of  them  were  to  go  home  to 
their  Sees  3  without  permission.4  It  is  evident,  then,  that 
the  bishops  saw  the  Queen;  but  whether  it  was  on  the 
occasion  of  her  proroguing  Parliament  on  8th  May,  or  sub- 
sequently on  the  same  day  or  the  one  following,  is  not 
determined.  If  the  former  supposition  be  correct,  then  the 
additional  insult  implied  in  a  restriction  of  liberty  publicly 
imposed  upon  them  has  to  be  taken  into  account. 

The  royal  commission  issued  on  23rd  May  conferred 
such  far-reaching  powers  upon  those  entrusted  with  them, 
that,  as  Alexander  Nowell  wrote:  "Certain  bishops,  (as 
the  Bishops  of  York  [Heath],  London  [Bonner],  Lichfield 
[Bayne],  and  of  Carlisle  [Oglethorpe])  do  put  away  their 
men,  because  (as  men  think)  they  will  give  over  their 
bishoprics."  5  There  does  not  then  seem  to  be  any  necessity 

1  Eccl.  Hist.,  vi,  p.  431. 

3  Queen  Elizabeth  and  the  Catholic  Hierarchy,  p.  49. 

3  A  su  casa,  in  the  original  Spanish. 

4  Chron.  Belg.,  No.  CCCXLVI,  i,  p.  519. 

5  P.R.O.,  Foreign,  Eliz.,  Spanish,  No.  781  ;  cf.  also  Churton,  Life 
of  Nowell,  p.  392. 

P 


210    THE  OLD  EPISCOPATE  AND  THE  NEW 

for  supposing  that  there  was  a  special  interview  between 
the  Queen  and  the  bishops.  They  had  already  sufficiently 
shown  their  mettle  both  in  the  House  of  Lords  and  in 
refusing  to  crown  Elizabeth;  they  were  not  likely,  there- 
fore, to  collapse  in  the  event  of  a  personal  discussion  with 
the  Queen ;  no  one  has  ever  questioned  their  courage. 

The  commissioners  proceeded  at  once  to  put  their  powers 
to  the  test,  selecting  Bishop  Bonner  as  the  first  object  of 
attack.  This  may  have  been  mere  chance,  or  due  to  the  fact 
that  he  was  the  local  Ordinary,  or,  as  most  writers  prefer  to 
suggest,  because  of  the  intense  dislike  entertained  towards 
him;  a  dislike  which  the  Queen  herself  is  said  to  have 
shown  in  a  marked  way,  by  refusing  to  extend  her  hand 
to  him  when  he  met  her  on  her  first  entry  into  London 
after  her  accession.  The  Privy  Council  Acts  are  not,  so  far 
as  is  known,  extant  for  the  period  12th  May,  1559 — 28th 
May,  1562;  a  record  of  events  has,  therefore,  to  be  sought 
for  elsewhere,  when  the  proceedings  of  the  Queen's  ministers 
are  mentioned.  II  Schifanoya,  writing  on  30th  May,  said: 
"  With  regard  to  religion,  they  live  in  all  respects  in  the 
Lutheran  fashion,  in  all  the  churches  of  London,  except 
St.  Paul's,  which  still  keeps  firm  in  its  former  state,  until 
the  day  of  St.  John  the  Baptist  [24th  June],  when  the  period 
prescribed  by  Parliament  expires,  the  Act  being  in  the 
press,  and  soon  about  to  appear;  but  the  Council  neverthe- 
less sent  twice  or  thrice  to  summon  the  Bishop  of  London 
to  give  him  orders  to  remove  the  service  of  the  Mass  and 
of  the  divine  office  in  that  church;  but  he  answered  them 
intrepidly:  'I  possess  three  things,  soul,  body,  and  pro- 
perty; of  the  two  [last]  you  can  dispose  at  your  pleasure, 
but  as  to  the  soul,  God  alone  can  command  me.'  He  remains 
constant  about  body  and  property,  and  again  to-day  he  has 
been  called  to  the  Council,  but  I  do  not  yet  know  what 
they  said  to  him."  l  The  result  of  that  visit  to  the  Council 
was  his  instant  deprivation;  and  a  week  later  II  Schifanoya 
supplied  some  interesting  particulars  as  to  what  had  taken 
place  both  at  that  memorable  visit  and  in  the  interval  up  to 
1   Venetian  Papers^  No.  77,  30th  May,  1559. 


THE  OLD  EPISCOPATE  AND  THE  NEW     211 

the  time  of  writing.  "  The  Council  summoned  the  Bishop 
of  London,"  he  said,  "  and  requested  him  earnestly  to  resign 
the  bishopric  to  one  Master  Grindal,  telling  him  that  such 
was  the  will  of  her  Majesty;  and  yesterday  the  Dean  and 
Chancellors  of  St.  Paul's,  by  commission  of  the  Queen, 
were  to  make  the  election,  to  which  they  would  by  no 
means  consent,  neither  would  the  Bishop,  although  they 
offered  him  a  very  good  pension  for  life;  to  which  he  in- 
trepidly replied  that  he  would  never  do  so,  and  preferred 
death.  He  was  answered :  '  Consider  well  your  case,  and 
how  you  will  live.'  He  rejoined :  '  It  is  true  nothing  else 
remains  to  me,  but  I  trust  in  God,  who  will  not  fail  me,  and 
in  my  friends,  by  so  much  the  more  as  I  shall  be  able  to 
gain  my  livelihood  by  teaching  children,  which  profession 
I  did  not  disdain  to  exercise,  although  I  was  a  Bishop ; 
and  should  I  not  find  anyone  willing  to  accept  my  teach- 
ing, I  am  Doctor  in  the  Laws,  and  will  resume  the  study 
of  what  I  have  long  forgotten,  and  will  thus  gain  my  bread ; 
and  should  this  not  succeed,  I  know  how  to  labour  with 
my  hands  in  gardens  and  orchards,  as  in  planting,  grafting, 
sowing,  etc.,  as  well  as  any  gardener  in  this  kingdom ;  and 
should  this  also  be  insufficient,  I  desire  no  other  grace, 
favour,  or  privilege  from  her  Majesty  than  what  she  grants 
to  the  mendicants  who  go  through  London  from  door  to 
door,  begging,  that  I  may  do  the  like  if  necessary.'  "  ' 

The  fact  here  disclosed  should  not  be  lost  sight  of, 
namely,  that  there  had  been  a  scheme  to  remove  the 
bishops  quietly,  by  securing  their  resignations  on  the  pros- 
pect held  out  to  them  of  receiving  pensions.  But  so  in- 
glorious a  solution  was  in  no  way  acceptable  to  the  Marian 
prelates;  hence  the  letter  already  quoted  from  goes  on  to 
say  that  "  when  the  Council  heard  this  his  [Bonner's]  final 
determination,  they  said :  '  Well,  we  have  nothing  more  to 
do  with  you  for  the  present,  so  her  Majesty  will  provide 
herself  with  another  bishop ' ;  and  she  has  done  so."  "  This 
statement  was  partly  correct,  inasmuch  as  Bonner  was  de- 

1  Venetian  Papers,  No.  78,  6th  June,  1559. 

2  Ibid. 


212     THE  OLD  EPISCOPATE  AND  THE  NEW 

prived  on  30th  May;  but  at  the  time  of  writing  no  suc- 
cessor had  been  chosen.  The  temporalities  were  seized  on 
2nd  June,  and  the  conge  cPelire  for  his  successor,  not,  how- 
ever, designating  him  by  name,  was  issued  on  22nd  June.1 
On  6th  June  the  Spanish  ambassador,  the  Bishop  of 
Aquila,  informed  his  royal  master  that  "  Lately  they  tried 
to  induce  the  bishops  to  take  the  oath  of  Supremacy. 
Finally,  meeting  with  no  success,  they  have  begun  to  put 
the  Act  in  force.  The  first  whom  they  summoned  was 
the  Bishop  of  London,  in  order  to  give  an  example  to  the 
rest  of  the  kingdom.  Asking  if  he  was  willing  to  take  the 
oath,  he  replied  that  he  abided  by  his  decision  \que  tenia], 
and  departed  laughing  at  them,  and  took  refuge  in  the 
monastery  of  Westminster,  which  is  a  sanctuary,  because, 
besides  having  deprived  him,  they  endeavoured  to  commit 
him  to  prison  on  the  score  of  certain  pecuniary  fines  in 
which  they  had  mulcted  him,  at  the  same  time  despoiling 
him  of  his  house  and  of  all  he  possessed.  The  next  day 
they  summoned  the  Abbot  of  Westminster,  and  the  next 
the  Dean  of  St.  Paul's,  with  whom  they  held  lengthy  con- 
ferences, using  severe  threats,  and  in  the  end  deprived 
them."2  Writing  on  19th  June,  Bishop  Quadra  told  Philip 
that  "  they  have  just  begun  to  carry  out  the  Act  of  Parlia- 
ment against  the  bishops,  and  have  actually  deprived  the 
Bishop  and  the  Dean  of  London,  ejecting  them  from  their 
church,  where  also  they  have  altered  the  divine  service, 
and  removed  thence  the  Blessed  Sacrament;  this  took 
place  on  Sunday  the  nth  of  this  month."3  With  these 
accounts  fresh  in  mind,  it  may  be  well  to  return  to 
II  Schifanoya's  letter  of  6th  June.  Having,  as  already 
quoted,  mentioned  that  Bonner  suffered  deprivation,  he 
went  on  to  say:  "  The  poor  bishop  has  taken  sanctuary  in 
Westminster  Abbey,  to  avoid  molestation  from  many  per- 
sons who  demand  considerable  sums  of  money  from  him; 
but  the  abbey  cannot   last  long,  as  the  Abbot   made  a 

1  Rymer,  Foedera,  xv,  p.  532. 

2  Chron.  Belg.,  No.  CCCLIV,  i,  p.  535. 

3  Ibid.,  No.  ccclvi,  i,  p.  539. 


THE  OLD  EPISCOPATE  AND  THE  NEW     213 

similar  reply,  when  it  was  offered  to  him  to  remain  securely 
in  his  abbey  with  his  habit,  and  the  monks  to  live  together 
as  they  have  done  till  now,  provided  that  he  would  cele- 
brate in  his  church  the  divine  offices  and  Mass,  administer- 
ing the  Sacraments  in  the  same  manner  as  in  the  other 
churches  of  London,  and  that  he  would  take  the  oath  like 
the  other  servants,  officials,  pensioners  and  dependents  of 
the  Crown,  and  acknowledge  this  establishment  as  from 
the  hands  of  her  Majesty.  To  these  things  the  Abbot  would 
by  no  means  consent;  so  after  St.  John's  day  [24th  June], 
the  term  fixed  by  Parliament  for  all  persons  to  consent  and 
swear  to  all  the  statutes  and  laws,  or  to  lose  what  they 
have,  all  of  them  will  go  about  their  business,  though  no 
one  can  leave  the  kingdom.  The  Count  de  Feria  had  ob- 
tained permission  to  take  to  Flanders  all  the  religious. 
Since  his  departure  this  concession  has  been  limited  to 
those  who  were  in  being  at  the  time  of  the  other  schism, 
and  who  are  very  few  in  number.  .  .  .  All  the  bishops  are 
expecting  hourly  to  be  deprived,  not  only  of  their  revenues, 
but  also  of  their  dignities,  and  everybody  marvels  at  so 
much  constancy.  The  Bishop  of  Ely  abandons  15,000 
crowns  revenue,  the  Archbishop  of  York,  late  Lord  Chan- 
cellor of  England,  little  less,  and  all  the  others  in  propor- 
tion to  their  grade.  I  hear  that  owing  to  this  great 
constancy,  it  is  determined  in  secret  to  proceed  more 
adroitly  in  enforcing  the  oath  to  observe  the  statutes." ' 

According  to  the  evidence  here  adduced,  Abbot  Fecken- 
ham  and  Dr.  Henry  Cole,  the  Dean  of  St.  Paul's,  were  thus 
the  next  after  Bishop  Bonner  to  suffer  the  penalty  of  re- 
fusing the  oath.  Machyn  could  not  have  written  his  diary 
day  by  day,  for  he  is  hopelessly  at  variance  both  with 
official  accounts  and  with  those  given  by  persons  who,  from 
the  official  positions  which  they  occupied,  enjoyed  the  best 
and  fullest  opportunities  of  learning  the  exact  truth.  The 
old  tailor-undertaker  must  have  "  posted  up  "  his  journal 
only  from  time  to  time,  which  might  of  course  easily 
account  for  his  inexactitudes.  For  example,  he  states  that 
1    Venetian  Papers,  No.  78,  6th  June,  1559. 


214     THE  OLD  EPISCOPATE  AND  THE  NEW 

Bishop  Bonner  was  deprived  on  29th  May,  and  then  jots 
down  as  a  fact  what  at  best  was  at  the  time  but  common 
rumour  and  expectation,  namely  that  "  in  his  [Bonner's] 
place,  Master  Grindal;  and  [Nowell]  elected  Dean  of  Paul's, 
and  the  old  Dean  deprived,  master  [Cole]";  but  Quadra, 
writing  on  6th  June,  clearly  shows  that  Bonner  was  de- 
prived on  30th  May,  while  Feckenham  and  Cole  were  dealt 
with  on  succeeding  days.1  Machyn  goes  on,  however,  to 
describe  how  on  "  Sant  Barnabe  day,"  nth  June,  "the 
Apostles'  Mass  made  an  end  that  day,  and  Mass  at  Paul's 
was  none  that  day,  and  the  new  Dean  took  possession."  It 
is  important  to  note  that  by  the  strict  letter  of  the  law  all 
this  was  wholly  illegal,  since  Bonner  and  Cole  were  justified 
by  the  terms  of  the  Act  of  Uniformity  in  continuing  the 
Mass  till  24th  June.  But  the  abolition  had  been  determined 
upon,  resistance  was  useless,  and  the  impatience  of  the 
reformers,  who  were  now  in  the  ascendant,  could  brook 
no  further  delay. 

The  die  was  now  definitely  cast,  and  the  tendering  of  the 
oath  was  proceeded  with  expeditiously.  During  the  month 
of  June  it  was  offered  to  the  Justices  of  the  Peace  in  the 
various  counties  as  a  preliminary  to  employing  them  in  ex- 
acting it  of  the  clergy  and  others  liable  to  take  it  in  their 
several  districts.  Meanwhile,  in  London,  other  bishops  were 
being  dealt  with.  II  Schifanoya,  in  his  letter  of  27th  June,4 
gives  a  list  of  bishops,  making  categories  of  those  already 
deprived  and  those  still  awaiting  the  same  fate.  He  made 
the  mistake,  however,  of  numbering  Kitchin  of  Llandaff 
amongst  the  former,  while  saying  that  Morgan  of  St.  David's 
still  retained  his  See;  by  transposing  the  names,  his  list 
would  have  accorded  with  facts.  These  are  his  own  words: 
"  Here  the  only  fresh  intelligence  is  that  six  or  eight  bishops 
have  been  deprived  not  only  of  their  bishoprics,  but  of  all 
their  revenues,  being  bound  also  not  to  depart  from  England, 
and  not  to  preach  or  exhort  whatever  in  public  or  private, 
and  still   less  to  write  anything  against  the   orders   and 

1  Chron.  Belg.,  No.  CCCLIV,  i,  p.  535. 

2  Venetian  Papers,  No.  81. 


THE  OLD  EPISCOPATE  AND  THE  NEW     215 

statutes  of  this  Parliament,  nor  to  give  occasion  to  insurrec- 
tion or  any  other  scandalous  act,  under  pain  of  perpetual 
imprisonment;  the  Queen's  ministers  demanding  security 
and  promise  to  be  given  by  one  [bishop]  for  the  other." 
The  Bishop  of  Aquila's  account  usefully  supplements  that 
of  II  Schifanoya.  Writing  also  on  the  27th  June,  he  told 
Philip  that  "last  week  they  ordered  five  bishops  to  be  called 
before  the  Council,  and  offered  them  the  oath  with  great 
promises,  and  menaces  as  well;  none  of  them,  however, 
would  take  it,  and  yesterday  they  were  ordered  to  go  back 
to  the  house  of  the  Sheriff  of  London,  whither  they  brought 
also  the  two  [White  and  Watson]  who  were  in  the  Tower, 
and  attempted  to  persuade  them  to  take  the  oath;  but 
neither  of  them  would  do  so.  They  were  very  badly  treated, 
and  then  they  scoffed  at  them,  and  in  the  end  gave  them 
orders  not  to  leave  London  till  the  end  of  September,  nor 
to  go  further  than  Westminster  under  penalty  of  £500 
apiece,  and  that  they  should  give  security  for  this.  The  two 
were  returned  to  prison,  and  they  and  the  others  deprived 
of  their  Sees  ipso  facto,  because  the  learned  in  the  law  here 
are  still  of  opinion  that  they  cannot  be  deprived  for  refusing 
to  swear  by  the  laws  of  this  country,  and  they  were  not 
willing  to  swear.  They  ordered  the  Bishop  of  Ely  to  be  sum- 
moned with  the  other  five,  then  they  sent  word  to  say  that 
he  need  not  come  till  they  sent  for  him ;  it  is  said  that  he  is 
firm." ' 

Some  of  these  dates  need  to  be  reconciled.  Machyn,  in 
his  diary,  says  that  five  of  the  bishops  were  deprived  on  21st 
June.  That  they  were  summoned  before  the  Council  on  that 
day  seems  clear  from  the  wording  of  Bishop  Quadra's  letter: 
"•last  week  they  ordered  five  bishops  to  be  called";  but  that 
same  letter  is  equally  explicit  in  stating  that  seven  were  de- 
prived on  26th  June.  Machyn's  record  runs  as  follows,  but 
it  is  so  faulty,  that  Quadra's  must  perforce  be  preferred: 
"The  xxi.  day  of  June  was  v.  bysshopes  deprevyd,  the  bys- 
shope  of  Lychfeld  and  Coventre  [Bayne],  and  the  bysshope 
of  Carley  [Carlisle:  Oglethorpe],  the  bysshope  of  West- 
1  Chron.  Belg.,  No.  CCCLix,  i,  p.  545. 


216    THE  OLD  EPISCOPATE  AND  THE  NEW 

Chester  {Chester-.  Scot],  the  bysshope  of  Llandaffh  [Kit- 
chin:  not  deprived;  he  should  have  said  Morgan  of  St. 
David's],  and  the  bysshope  of  {blank:  should  have  been 
Pate  of  Worcester] " ;  and  for  26th  June  he  records:  "the 
same  day  was  deprevyd  of  their  bysshoprykes,  the  bysshope 
of  Wynchester  [White]  and  the  bysshope  of  Lynckolne 
[Watson],  at  Master  Hawse  the  King's  shreyff  in  Mynsyon 
[Minchin]  Lane;  and  the  bysshope  of  Wynchester  to  the 
Towre  agayne,  and  the  bysshope  of  Lynckolne  delevered 
a-way."1  On  1st  July,  Quadra  told  Philip  that  the  Bishop 
of  Lincoln  had  been  released  from  the  Tower  because  he 
was  very  ill.2  Machyn  further  records  that  on  23rd  June, 
five  new  bishops  were  elected,  and,  amongst  this  number, 
Grindal,  to  the  See  of  London.  But  it  will  be  recalled  that 
on  the  previous  29th  May,  he  had  made  the  statement  that 
Grindal  had  then  been  raised  to  that  dignity;  it  is  clear 
then,  that  at  the  earlier  date  he  was  only  designated  to  that 
office.  The  other  four  Sees  then  provided  for  were  vacant 
by  the  natural  death  of  their  former  occupants,  and  were  now 
to  be  given  to  reforming  prelates.  Machyn,  who  is  nothing 
if  not  inaccurate,  says  they  were  "  come  from  beyond  the 
sea,"  and  immediately  names  "Master  Parker,  Bishop  of 
Canterbury,"  who  was  not  a  returned  exile,  but  had  remained 
in  England  during  the  whole  of  Mary's  reign ;  the  statement 
was  correct  enough,  however,  as  applied  to  the  rest :  Scory, 
for  Hereford  ;  Barlow,  for  Chichester ;  Bill,  for  Salisbury ; 
and  Cox,  for  Norwich.  The  two  last  named  appointments 
were  not  eventually  confirmed.  Though  Cox  was  actually 
elected  for  Norwich,  he  was  transferred  to  Ely  within  a  few 
weeks,  and  before  his  consecration.  Bill  never  attained  to 
episcopal  rank,  but  had  to  content  himself  with  the  Provost- 
ship  of  Eton,  and  the  Deanery  of  Westminster,  when  that 
ancient  monastic  foundation  was  by  royal  proclamation  of 
2 1st  June,  1560,  converted  into  a  Collegiate  Church  with  a 
Dean  and  twelve  prebendaries.3    But  this  is  anticipating. 

1  Camden  Soc.  PubL,  1848,  pp.  200-1. 

2  Cf.  Chron.  Belg.,  No.  CCCLXII,  i,  p.  548. 

3  Rymer,  Foedera,  xv,  p.  590. 


THE  OLD  EPISCOPATE  AND  THE  NEW     217 

What  Machyn  was  in  reality  referring  to  was  the  issue  of  the 
conges  delire.  These  documents  are  dated  22nd  June  for 
the  Sees  of  Hereford  and  London ; l  but  that  for  Canterbury 
bears  the  date  of  18th  July,  and  that  of  Salisbury  27th 
July.2 

II  Schifanoya,  writing  to  Ottaviano  Vivaldino  on  27th 
June,  said:  "The  Archbishop  of  York  and  the  Bishop  of 
Ely,  your  Lordship's  friend,  remain  for  the  last  to  be  sum- 
moned, in  hope  of  gaining  them,  all  possible  temptations  not 
wanting,  being  such  rare  men  as  they  are,  and  necessary  in 
affairs  of  State;  but  there  is  no  doubt  of  their  faith  and  con- 
stancy, both  of  them  having  spoken  so  candidly  in  Parlia- 
ment, and  still  persevering  in  their  integrity."  3 

On  Friday,  5th  July,  Archbishop  Heath  and  Thirlby,  the 
Bishop  of  Ely,  were  at  length  summoned  for  the  purpose  of 
having  the  oath  of  Supremacy  tendered  to  them  by  the 
Council.  Machyn  records  that  on  that  date  "  was  deposed 
of  their  bishoprics  the  Archbishop  of  York,  Doctor  Heath, 
and  the  Bishop  of  Ely,  Doctor  Thirlby,  at  my  Lord  Trea- 
surer's place  at  'Frers  Augustyne'  [Austin  Friars]."  The 
appreciation  of  the  high  qualities  of  these  two  prelates 
evinced  in  II  Schifanoya's  letter  finds  an  echo  in  the  account 
of  their  deprivation  sent  by  Quadra  to  King  Philip.  "Last 
Friday  they  deprived  the  Archbishop  of  York  and  the  [Bis- 
hop] of  Ely.  He  of  Ely  had  high  words  with  Bacon  and 
told  him  that  if  the  Queen  continued  as  she  had  begun  to 
be  influenced  by  those  she  had  about  her,  both  she  and  her 
kingdom  would  be  lost."4 

There  were  only  five  of  the  old  bishops  now  left:  Turber- 
ville  of  Exeter,  Bourne  of  Bath  and  Wells,  Tunstall  of  Dur- 
ham, Poole  of  Peterborough,  and  Goldwell  of  St.  Asaph's. 
Hence  Grindal  was  correct  when,  on  14th  July,  1559,  he 
wrote  to  Conrad  Hubert  that  "the  popish  bishops  are  almost 
all  of  them  deprived ;  and  if  any  yet  remain,  they  will  be 
deprived  in  a  few  days  for  refusing  to  renounce  their  obedi- 

1  Rymer,  Foedera,  xv,  p.  532.  J  Ibid.,  xv,  pp.  536-7. 

3    Venetian  Papers,  No.  82,  27th  June,  1559. 

'  Chron.  Belg.,  No.  CCCLXXii,  i,  p.  561,  12th  July,  1559. 


2i8     THE  OLD  EPISCOPATE  AND  THE  NEW 

ence  to  the  Pope." x  Goldwell,  having  no  illusions  as  to  how 
matters  would  finally  shape  themselves,  and  having  no  mind 
to  spend  his  remaining  years  in  durance,  escaped  to  the 
Continent  some  time  on  or  after  26th  June,  on  which  date 
he  wrote  from  St.  Alban's  to  his  brother  Stephen,  saying 
that  he  was  determined  to  leave  his  bishopric.2  The  next 
day  his  servants  arrived  at  Stephen  Goldwell's  house  at 
Chart  in  Kent,  saying  they  did  not  know  what  had  become 
of  their  master,  the  Bishop.3  In  his  absence  he  was  deprived. 
In  Tierney's  Dodd  the  date  is  given  as  15th  July,  1559;  but 
Quadra,  writing  to  King  Philip  on  13th  August,  informed 
him  that  "they  have  this  week  deprived  the  Bishops  of  St. 
David's  and  Exeter."  4  The  Bishop  of  St.  David's  has,  how- 
ever, been  mentioned  as  deprived  on  26th  June;  it  is  likely, 
therefore,  that  at  that  date  he  had  been  told  to  consider  him- 
self deprived,  but  that  the  legal  instrument  giving  actual 
effect  to  the  sentence  of  deposition  is  dated  later.  Young, 
his  successor,  writing  to  Cecil  in  March,  1560,  says  that  his 
"Bill  of  Restitution,  which  was  made  to  take  effect  a  die  de- 
privations,being  the  10th  day  of  August  last,"  5  and  thus  ex- 
actly fixes  the  date,  which  may  also  be  taken  as  that  when 
Turberville  of  Exeter  was  deprived,  being  just  three  days 
before  Quadra  wrote  to  Philip.  This  serves  to  correct  the 
the  late  Fr.  Bridgett,  who  conjectured  that  the  date  of  his 
deprivation  was  in  November,  1559,  saying  that  "the  date 
of  his  deposition  can  only  be  gathered  from  the  fact  that  the 
spiritualities  were  seized  16th  November,  1559."°  Quadra, 
in  his  letter  just  quoted,  goes  on  to  say:  "  He  of  Durham, 
who  is  a  very  old  man  and  learned,  came  here  from  his  See, 
[tierra]  on  purpose  to  give  the  Queen  his  opinion  about 
these  things;  he  also  showed  her  the  last  will  of  King 
Henry  in  his  handwriting,  and  other  papers  of  the  same 
King,  which  are  all  against  the  heresies  which  have  been 
accepted  here,  and  in  particular  against  that  of  the  Sacra- 

1  II  Zur.,  No.  10.  2  P.R.O.  Dom.  Eliz.,  IV,  No.  71,  1. 

3  Ibid.,  iv,  No.  71,  11.  4  Citron.  Belg.,  No.  cccxcix,  i,  p.  595. 

5  P.R.O.  Dom.  Eliz,  XI,  No.  38. 

6  Q.  Eliz.  and  the  Cath.  Hierarchy,  p.  96. 


THE  OLD  EPISCOPATE  AND  THE  NEW     219 

mentarians  [i.e.,  the  followers  of  Calvin  and  Zwinglius], 
and  besought  her  at  least  to  respect  the  wish  of  her  father, 
even  though  she  would  not  adhere  to  the  Universal  \todd] 
Church;  but  he  did  no  good,  and  they  only  derided  him,  as 
he  might  well  have  done  them.  They  tell  me  that  this  bishop 
will  remain  true,  and  that  his  opinion  is  of  great  weight 
and  authority  in  his  own  country."  '  An  entry  in  Machyn's 
diary  for  20th  July  has  reference  to  the  foregoing  incident. 
"  The  xx  day  of  July  the  good  old  Bishop  of  Durham  came 
riding  up  to  London  with  three  score  horse,  and  so  to  South- 
wark  unto  Master  Dolman's  house,  a  tallow-chandler,  and 
there  he  lies  against  the  Chain  gate."  Meanwhile,  on 
24th  June,  there  had  issued  from  Westminster  the  Letters 
Patent  directing  the  holding  of  a  visitation  of  the  Northern 
Province.2  The  end  and  object  of  this  visitation  aroused 
the  indignation  and  antagonism  of  the  sturdy  old  prelate; 
and  on  19th  August  he  wrote  to  Cecil,  saying  frankly  and 
boldly  that  "  where  I  do  understand  out  of  my  diocese  of  a 
warning  for  a  visitation  to  be  had  there,  this  shall  be  to  ad- 
vertise your  mastership  that  ...  if  the  same  visitation  shall 
proceed  to  such  end  in  my  diocese  of  Durham,  as  I  do 
plainly  see  to  be  set  forth  here  in  London,  as  pulling  down 
of  altars,  defacing  of  churches  by  taking  away  of  the  cruci- 
fixes, I  cannot  in  my  conscience  consent  to  it,  being  pastor 
there  .  .  .  nor  to  have  any  new  doctrine  taught  in  my 
diocese."  3  Further,  on  9th  September  the  royal  assent  to 
Matthew  Parker's  election  as  Archbishop  of  Canterbury 
was  issued,  and  it  included  a  mandate  to  Tunstall,  Bourne, 
Poole,  Kitchin,  Barlow  and  Scory  to  proceed  to  his  conse- 
cration.4 Barlow  and  Scory  were,  of  course,  quite  to  be  de- 
pended upon;  Kitchin,  too,  having  by  that  date  shown  his 
willingness  to  subscribe  the  oattfof  Supremacy,  was  doubt- 
less reckoned  on  as  being  amenable  in  the  matter  of  the 
consecration.    He  was  the  only  one  of  the  Marian  bishops 

1  Chron.  Belg.,  No.  CCCXCIX,  i,  p.  595,  13th  August,  1559. 

2  P.R.O.  Dom.  Eliz.,  vol.  x,  p.  1. 

3  Ibid.,  vi,  No.  22. 

4  Rymer,  Focdera,  xv,  p.  541. 


220    THE  OLD  EPISCOPATE  AND  THE  NEW 

who  proved  untrue  to  his  trust.  The  Bishop  of  Aquila, 
writing  on  12th  July,  said  then  of  him:  "  I  understand  that 
the  Bishop  of  Llandaff,  who  is  an  avaricious  old  man  with- 
out much  learning,  is  hesitating,  and  it  is  feared  that  he  may 
take  the  oath,  for  of  late  he  is  again  wearing  a  bishop's 
dress.  I  learnt  this  and  so  went  to  visit  him  and  encourage 
him  as  well  as  I  was  able ;  but  notwithstanding  this  he  has 
given  way."  '  On  5th  August  Paulo  Tiepolo  wrote  to  the 
Doge  and  Senate  of  Venice:  "...  we  hear  from  those  parts 
[England]  that  amongst  all  the  bishops  there,  the  only  one 
who  would  take  the  form  of  oath  which  I,  Paulo,  sent  to 
your  Serenity,  was  the  Bishop  of  Llandaff."-  To  his  credit, 
be  it  said,  however,  that  he  took  no  part  in  Parker's  conse- 
cration ;  Tunstall,  Poole  and  Bourne  would  of  course  have 
nothing  to  say  to  it ;  therefore,  at  a  later  date  another  writ 
had  to  be  issued  to  prelates  more  subservient,  gathered  from 
any  quarter  whence  the  Council  could  procure  them.  The 
next  step  to  be  taken,  therefore,  if  the  Northern  Visitation 
was  to  proceed  in  the  diocese  of  Durham,  was  to  remove 
Tunstall  from  '  being  pastor  there,'  for  he  had  sufficiently 
warned  them  that  he  would  consider  it  his  duty  vigorously 
to  oppose  the  Visitors'  doings.  The  oath  was  accordingly 
tendered  to  him  at  some  date  later  in  September,  but  not 
hitherto  definitely  fixed.  Machyn  says:  "  The  28th  day  of 
September,  was  Michaelmas-even,  was  the  old  Bishop  of 
Durham,  Doctor  Tunstall,  was  deposed  of  his  bishopric  of 
Durham,  because  he  should  not  receive  the  rents  of  that 
quarter."  It  would  almost  seem,  however,  that  the  sentence 
of  deprivation  must  have  been  passed  a  few  days  earlier, 
for  on  27th  September,  the  Council  committed  him  to 
Matthew  Parker's  keeping,  suggesting  that  he  should  "  have 
conference  with  him  in  certain  points  of  religion  wherein  he 
is  to  be  resolved." 3  Dr.  Parker  at  once,  apparently,  under- 
took the  task  committed  to  him,  and  found  his  aged  prisoner 

1  Simancas  Transcr.,  B.M.  Add.  MS.  26056*. 

3   Venetian  Papers,  No.  91 ;  but  see  Estcourt,  Anglican  Ordinations, 

P-93- 

3  Parker  Corresp.,  No.  63. 


THE  OLD  EPISCOPATE  AND  THE  NEW     221 

courteous  and  willing  to  listen  patiently  to  anything  he 
might  have  to  say.  Misled  by  what  was  merely  the  good 
breeding  of  a  truly  religious  man,  Parker  evidently  thought 
that  he  was  making  a  convert  of  Tunstall,  and  wrote  to  the 
Council  to  acquaint  them  with  the  fact,  as  we  learn  from  a 
reply  which  came  to  him  from  Cecil,  dated  2nd  October, 
assuring  him  that  "  it  is  much  liked  the  comfort  that 
ye  give  of  the  Bishop  of  Durham's  towardness,"  adding 
with  a  caution  bred  of  experience,  "  wherein  I  pray  God  ye 
be  not  deceived."  The  sentence  that  follows  is  also  signifi- 
cant: "  It  is  meant,  if  he  will  conform  himself,  that  both  he 
shall  remain  bishop  and  in  good  favour  and  credit;  other- 
wise he  must  needs  receive  the  common  order  of  those  which 
refuse  to  obey  the  laws."  '  Strype  was  beguiled  by  these  let- 
ters into  making  the  absurd,  and  indeed  calumnious,  state- 
ment that  "before  his  death,  by  the  Archbishop's  means,  he 
was  brought  off  from  papistical  fancies."  a  Whatever  hopes 
Dr.  Parker  may  have  entertained  at  first,  he  was  soon  un- 
deceived, as  Cecil  had  evidently  feared  he  would  be;  for,  as 
early  as  5th  October,  Cecil  wrote  to  him,  again  in  answer  to 
a  letter  from  him :  "  the  Queen's  Majesty  is  very  sorry  that 
ye  can  prevail  no  more  with  Mr.  Tunstall,  and  so  am  I,  I 
assure  you ;  for  the  recovery  of  such  a  man  would  have 
furthered  the  common  affairs  of  this  realm  very  much." 3 
Bishop  Tunstall  did  not  long  survive  to  witness  the  progress 
of  the  work  of  reformation,  for  he  died  at  Lambeth  on  the 
following  1 8th  November,  and  was  buried  there  on  the  mor- 
row.4 On  the  day  of  his  death  Dr.  Parker  wrote  to  Cecil, 
and  after  making  some  suggestions  about  his  interment,  re- 
ferred, in  the  extract  that  follows,  to  the  documents  the  old 
Bishop  had  brought  up  to  London  with  him  to  show  to  the 
Queen.  "  I  have  sealed  up  two  small  caskets,"  he  said, 
"  wherein  I  think  no  great  substance,  either  of  money  or  of 
writings.  There  is  one  roll  of  books  which  he  purposed  to 
deliver  to  the  Queen,  which  is  nothing  else  but  King  Henry's 


Parker  Corresp.,  No.  64.  '2  Strype's  Parker,  i,  p.  94. 

Parker  Corresp.,  No.  65.  l  Machyn's  Diary. 


222     THE  OLD  EPISCOPATE  AND  THE  NEW 

testament,  and  a  book  Contra  communicationem  utriusque 
speciei,  and  such  matter."  1 

Bishops  Bourne  of  Bath  and  Wells  and  Poole  of  Peter- 
borough now  alone  remained  in  nominal  possession  of 
their  Sees.  It  is  difficult  to  understand  why  they  had  been 
overlooked  and  thus  "lagged  superfluous  on  the  stage," 
unless,  groundlessly,  some  measure  of  compliance  had 
been  hoped  for  from  them  as  in  the  case  of  the  aged 
Bishop  of  Durham.  With  their  refusal,  however,  to  take 
any  part  in  Parker's  consecration,  any  hopes  of  their  sub- 
mission that  may  have  been  entertained  must  have  van- 
ished; therefore,  on  18th  October,  1559,  a  commission  was 
directed  to  four  Somersetshire  Justices,  empowering  them 
to  administer  the  oath  of  Supremacy  to  their  Ordinary.2 
This  proves  that  Gilbert  Bourne  was  at  that  date  residing 
in  his  diocese,  and  had  not  been  summoned  to  appear 
before  the  Council.  He  was  one  of  those  who  had  been 
ordered  not  to  leave  London  before  the  end  of  September; 
whether  that  order  had  been  relaxed  or  rescinded  does  not 
transpire;  but  in  the  light  of  Tunstall's  case,  it  is  difficult 
to  understand  how  he,  too,  had  not  been  hitherto  recog- 
nised as  obdurate,  and  therefore  put  in  the  same  con- 
demnation with  the  Bishop  of  Durham.  The  oath  was 
refused  by  him  when  it  was  tendered,  and  the  legal  depriva- 
tion followed,  certainly  before  26th  October,  when  the  See 
of  Bath  and  Wells  was  bracketed  with  others  in  a  list  of 
vacant  dioceses.3 

Nothing  definite  is  known  about  the  circumstances 
attending  Bishop  Poole's  deprivation;  but  it  must  have 
taken  place  at  or  about  the  same  time  as  Bourne's.  One 
fact  helps  to  fix  it  approximately.  The  spiritualities  of  the 
See  of  Peterborough  were  seized  on  nth  November,  1559.4 

Thus  were  the  men  who  barred  the  way  of  the  reformers 
removed  out  of  their  path.  Death  had  signally  aided  them 
also ;  the  mortality  amongst  the  bishops  had  been  strangely 

1  Parker  Corresp.,  No.  74. 

a  Rymer,  Foedera,  xv,  p.  545.         3  P.R.O.  Dom.  Eliz.,  vn,  No.  19. 

4  Bridgett  and  Knox,  Q.  Eliz.  and  the  Cath.  Hierarchy,  p.  81. 


THE  OLD  EPISCOPATE  AND  THE  NEW     223 

rapid  and  had  claimed  many  victims  during  this  eventful 
period.  When  Mary  died  there  were  five  Sees  standing 
vacant,  namely,  Salisbury,  Hereford,  Gloucester,  Bangor, 
and  Oxford.  Cardinal  Pole,  Archbishop  of  Canterbury, 
survived  Mary  but  a  few  hours;  and  before  the  few  re- 
maining weeks  of  that  waning  year  were  sped,  there  were 
four  more  vacancies,  namely,  in  the  Sees  of  Norwich, 
Rochester,  Bristol,  and  Chichester.  Tunstall  did  not  survive 
his  deprivation  many  weeks,  as  he  died  on  18th  November, 
1559;  and  he  was  followed  to  the  grave  in  quick  succession 
by  Bayne  of  Coventry  and  Lichfield  (fiSth  November, 
1559);  Morgan,  of  St.  David's  (f  23rd  December,  1559); 
Oglethorpe,  of  Carlisle  (f  December,  1559);  and  White 
of  Winchester  (-f*i2th  January,  1559-60).1  Thus,  within 
twenty-five  months,  death  had  widowed  fifteen  of  the 
twenty-six  Sees  of  England  and  Wales,  and  legal  measures 
had  emptied  the  remainder. 

These  important  places  had  to  be  filled.  Who  were  the 
men  from  whose  ranks  the  choice  would  be  made?  It  had 
been  recognised  for  some  little  while  before  the  actual  date 
of  her  death  that  Queen  Mary  had  not  long  to  live.  The 
reformers,  who  had  preferred  exile  to  the  risk  they  ran  of 
suffering  death  for  their  opinions  if  they  remained  in  Eng- 
land, were  therefore  eagerly  looking  forward  to  the  dawn 
of  a  better  day  for  their  propaganda,  and  awaited  Eliza- 
beth's accession  to  the  throne  with  impatient  expectation. 
These  men  were  of  unquiet  spirit,  whose  ardour  for  con- 
tentious debate,  not  even  adversity  had  succeeded  in 
cooling;  their  conduct  while  in  exile  furnishes  ample  evi- 
dence of  their  untractable  natures.  Sometimes  it  is  family 
squabbling,  as  in  the  case  of  John  Burcher,  who  mixed  up 
secular  concerns  with  spiritual  aims  in  most  incongruous 

1  Writing  to  Peter  Martyr  on  5th  March,  1559-60,  Jewel  informed 
him  that  "  your  friend  White,  who  so  candidly  and  kindly  \gui  ita 
candide  et  amice]  wrote  against  you,  is  dead,  as  I  think,  from  rage ; 
and  religion,  which  you  may  be  surprised  at,  has  not  suffered  in  the 
least.  It  sorely  vexed  this  patient  man  to  see  both  himself  and  his 
party  laughed  at  by  the  very  boys  in  the  street"  (cf.  I  Zur.,  No.  30). 


224     THE  OLD  EPISCOPATE  AND  THE  NEW 

fashion.  In  a  letter  to  Henry  Bullinger,  dated  ist  March, 
1 5  57-8, l  he  is  anxious  about  a  brewery  business  he  is  inter- 
ested in;  on  the  16th  March  2  the  same  topic  occupies  his 
mind;  later  in  the  year,  27th  October,3  he  waxes  wroth 
over  the  "uncandid  and  unchristian  conduct"  of  a  relative 
over  some  debts.  "  Rotaker,  contrary  to  the  duty  of  a 
Christian,  not  to  say  of  a  preacher,  is  contriving  how  to 
retain  possession  of  [my]  property";  and  this  he  had  "all 
but  fraudulently  extorted."  Then  the  exiles  at  Frankfort 
fell  foul  of  one  another  over  questions  of  ceremonies.  As 
the  story  may  be  seen  at  length  elsewhere,  there  is  no  need 
here  to  give  anything  more  than  a  short  resume  of  the 
dispute,  sufficient  for  an  understanding  of  the  temper  of 
those  engaged  in  it,  and  who  transferred  their  differences 
to  England  when  they  came  back.  Even  the  experience  of 
a  common  fate,  the 

speechless  death 
Which  robs  my  tongue  from  breathing  native  breath.4 

had  been  insufficient  to  secure  toleration  amongst  them- 
selves towards  the  free  exercise  of  private  judgment  which 
each  loudly  claimed  for  himself,  but  assiduously  denied  to 
anyone  else.  The  exiles  in  Frankfort  had  not  been  satisfied 
with  the  Liturgy  of  Edward's  books  of  Common  Prayer, 
denouncing  both  of  them  as  too  papistical;  accordingly, 
the  form  of  service  which  they  devised  to  replace  them 
followed  Calvinistic  rather  than  Lutheran  models,  not  even 
a  surplice  being  worn  by  the  minister  when  celebrating. 
The  exiles  in  Strasburg,  Zurich  and  elsewhere,  however, 
were  satisfied  with  the  reformed  service  as  used  in  England 
in  Edward's  reign.  Certain  ministers  went,  by  invitation 
from  Strasburg,  Zurich  and  Geneva,  to  Frankfort;  where- 
upon a  furious  contest  arose.  John  Knox,  from  Geneva, 
was  all  for  change,  and  was  supported  by  Calvin,  who  had 
not  a  good  word  to  say  for  the  English  Prayer  Book ;  but 

1  Parker  Soc.  Pub.  Original  Letters,  ii,  No.  330. 

2  Ibid.,  No.  331.  3  Ibid.,  No.  332. 
1   Rich.  II,  act  i,  sc.  3. 


THE  OLD  EPISCOPATE  AND  THE  NEW     225 

a  compromise  was  effected,  whereby  the  rival  forms  of 
service  were  to  be  used  alternately.  At  this  juncture 
Richard  Cox  appeared  upon  the  scene,  and  the  weight  of 
his  influence  was  cast  on  the  side  of  the  English  Prayer 
Book.  The  rival  factions  immediately  ranged  themselves 
under  the  captaincy  of  these  two  champions,  and  were 
known  henceforth  as  the  Knoxians  and  the  Coxians. 
Richard  Cox  was  a  redoubtable  leader.  He  had  first 
come  into  prominence  in  Henry's  reign.  While  at  Oxford 
he  had  developed  Lutheran  tendencies  and  had  to  quit  the 
University;  but  he  was  appointed  Head  Master  of  Eton, 
and  received  much  other  preferment  later,  as  the  Deaneries 
of  Christ  Church,  Oxford,  and  of  Westminster,  and  the 
Chancellorship  of  Oxford  University.  In  the  last-named 
capacity  he  made  himself  answerable  for  irreparable  mis- 
chief by  causing  the  destruction  of  priceless  manuscripts. 
On  Mary's  accession  he  was  imprisoned  for  a  short  period 
on  political  grounds,  and  was  also  deprived  of  his  ecclesi- 
astical preferments ;  but  he  managed  to  escape  abroad  in 
1554,  and  straightway  concerned  himself  in  the  squabbles 
which  had  broken  out  at  Frankfort.  He  pitted  himself 
against  men  of  whom  Heylin  says:  "The  names  of  Whit- 
tingham,  Williams,  Goodman,  Wood  and  Sutton,  who 
appeared  in  the  head  of  this  congregation,  declare  suffi- 
ciently of  what  principles  and  strain  they  were,  how  willing 
they  would  be  to  lay  aside  the  face  of  an  English  Church, 
and  frame  themselves  to  any  Liturgy  but  their  own."  l 
The  whole  course  of  the  dispute  may  be  studied  in  Heylin's 
History,  or  better  still,  in  Collier's.2  It  is  enough  here  to 
record  that  the  Coxians  emerged  triumphant  from  the 
struggle;  but  the  fiery  spirit  of  the  Knoxians,  identical 
with  that  of  modern  militant  non-conformity,  only  needed 
rekindling  in  the  years  to  come,  to  burst  out  with  greater 
fury  than  ever. 

On  Queen  Mary's  death,  the  exiles,  who  had  placed  all 
their  hopes  in  Elizabeth's  Protestant  sympathies,  began  at 

1  Hist,  of  Reform.,  ed.  1670,  pt.  ii,  p.  59. 

2  Eccl.  Hist.,  vi,  pp.  144-53. 

Q 


226     THE  OLD  EPISCOPATE  AND  THE  NEW 

once  to  flock  back  to  England  with  spirits  unsubdued  by 
adversity.  The  same  contentious  spirit  which  had  char- 
acterised them  at  Frankfort  was  transferred  to  England, 
there  to  show  itself  only  in  increased  bitterness.  It  is  of 
importance  to  realise  this,  as  it  is  the  key  to  much  of  the 
religious  trouble  of  Elizabeth's  reign.  It  is  fruitless  to 
speculate  on  what  might  have  been  the  course  of  the 
Elizabethan  settlement  of  religion  if  these  turbulent  spirits 
had  remained  abroad;  certainly  a  workable  and  working 
compromise  of  toleration  for  Papists  and  Reformers  alike 
might  have  been  effected;  or,  at  least,  such  a  solution  is 
thinkable.  But  the  arrogant  intolerance  exhibited  against 
one  another  by  both  sections  of  the  Frankfort  dispute, 
while  still  continuing  unabated  after  the  return  of  the  exiles 
to  England,  was  combined  into  a  semblance  of  peace  and 
unanimity  against  the  common  enemy — those  who  adhered 
to  the  Pope  and  to  the  Mass. 

No  sooner,  then,  were  these  exiles  back  in  England, 
than,  as  Heylin  expresses  it:1  "Many  unadvised  zealots 
amongst  the  Protestants,  who,  measuring  the  Queen's 
affections  by  their  own,  or  else  presuming  that  their  errors 
would  be  taken  for  an  honest  zeal,  employed  themselves 
as  busily  in  the  demolishing  of  altars,  and  defacing  of 
images,  as  if  they  had  been  licensed  and  commanded  to  it 
by  some  legal  warrant."  It  was  this  unrestrained  zeal  that 
elicited  the  Queen's  proclamation  of  27th  December,  1558, 
prohibiting  all  manner  of  preaching;  for  it  was  altogether 
counter  to  Tudor  notions  of  order  and  good  government 
that  private  enterprise  should  go  in  advance  of  official 
sanction  and  commendation. 

The  Prayer  Book  was,  it  can  hardly  be  disputed,  the 
cause  of  contention  between  the  two  wings  of  the  reforming 
party,  the  moderates  and  the  extremists,  as  trfey  may  be 
termed.  The  former,  content  with  the  Edwardine  formu- 
laries, felt  that  they  had  sufficiently  expunged  from  them 
the  ideas  of  sacrifice  and  of  the  powers  of  the  priesthood  in 
the  sense  accepted  and  taught  by  the  Catholic  Church, 
1  Hist,  of  Ref.,  pt.  ii,  p.  104. 


THE  OLD  EPISCOPATE  AND  THE  NEW     227 

while  yet  attached  in  some  slight  degree  to  the  outward 
forms  observed  by  the  ancient  Church  in  the  conduct  of 
divine  worship,  as  safeguards  of  decency  and  decorum. 
Thus  it  was  that  the  Prayer  Books  of  Edward  VI  enjoined 
the  use  of  surplice  and  cope,  and  the  employment  of  crucifix 
and  candles  on  the  altars.  The  extremists,  however,  would 
have  none  of  these  "trifles  and  dregs";1  and  hence,  from 
the  first,  a  violent  opposition  was  offered  to  the  Liturgy 
even  as  by  law  established. 

Moreover,  the  exiles,  full  of  hope  and  expectation,  flocked 
back  hungry  for  speedy  preferment,  and  lost  no  time  in 
carving  out  (in  prospect)  amongst  themselves  the  good  and 
fat  emoluments  of  the  English  Church.  For  even  after  the 
spoliations  of  Henry's  and  Edward's  reigns,  the  revenues  of 
the  higher  ecclesiastical  offices  were  still  considerable. 
But  events  did  not  travel  as  fast  as  they  had  anticipated ; 
and  at  the  end  of  April,  Jewel  complained  to  Peter  Martyr 
that  although  four  months  had  elapsed  since  the  return  of 
the  exiles,  "as  yet  not  the  slightest  provision  has  been 
made  for  any  of  us."  2  Another  six  months  went  by,  and 
Jewel  had  to  lament  that  the  repatriated  reformers  were 
still  labouring  under  the  same  disappointment.  "With 
your  usual  affection  to  the  common  cause,"  he  wrote,  "you 
were  grieved  at  hearing  that  no  provision  had  been  made 
for  any  one  of  us.  You  may  now  resume  your  grief,  for 
nothing  whatever  has  been  done  up  to  the  present  moment 
.  .  .  the  Queen  herself  both  favours  our  cause  and  is  desir- 
ous to  serve  us.  Wherefore,  although  these  beginnings  are 
painful  enough,  we  do  not  lose  our  spirits,  nor  cease  to  hope 
for  better  things."  3  A  few  days  later  Jewel  expressed  the 
misgivings  which  he  and  others  felt  at  the  disadvantageous 
exchange  of  episcopal  lands  which  the  Queen  had  enforced, 
and  also  at  the  royal  annexation  of  the  revenues  of  vacant 
Sees ;  the  yearning  of  the  expectant  exiles  for  the  sweets 
and  fruits  of  office  is  betrayed.    "The  bishops  are  as  yet 

1  Collier,  Ecd.  Hist.,  vi,  p.  153. 

2  I  Zur.,  p.  21,  No.  7,  28th  April,  1559. 

3  Ibid.,  p.  53,  No.  23,  5th  November,  1559. 


228     THE  OLD  EPISCOPATE  AND  THE  NEW 

only  marked  out,  and  their  estates  are  in  the  meantime 
gloriously  swelling  the  Exchequer." '  Edmund  Sandys 
bewailed  his  poverty  to  Matthew  Parker  in  the  following 
words:  "They  never  ask  us  in  what  state  we  stand,  neither 
consider  what  we  want ;  and  yet  in  the  time  of  our  exile  we 
were  not  so  bare  as  we  are  now  brought ;  but  I  trust  we 
shall  not  linger  long,  for  the  Parliament  draweth  to  an 
end."  2  As  their  needs  pressed,  they  forgot  all  claims  of 
decency,  and  unblushingly  petitioned  not  only  for  vacancies, 
but  even  for  the  reversion  of  places  actually  occupied,  which 
their  prescience  assured  them  would  soon  be  rendered 
vacant  by  sentence  of  deprivation  against  their  present 
holders.  Thus,  for  example,  Edmund  Ghest,  writing  on 
31st  August,  1559,3  solicited  Secretary  Cecil  for  the  favour 
of  his  influence,  having  an  eye  on  the  Deanery  of  Wor- 
cester, which  Mr.  Seth  Holland,  then  in  enjoyment  of  it, 
would  probably  have  to  vacate  for  recusancy.  Ghest 
reports  of  Seth  Holland  that  he  "will  not  renounce  the 
Pope  .  .  .  wherefore  most  humbly  I  beseech  you  to  be  so 
good  master  to  me,  as  to  be  suitor  to  the  Queen's  Highness, 
that  I  may  succeed  him  in  his  Deanery  of  Worcester."  In 
November,  1 561,  one  Roger  Kelk  besought  Cecil  to  bestow 
on  him  the  Deanery  of  Lincoln,  which  was  soon  to  be 
vacated.  "It  is  not  my  wont,  believe  me,"  he  wrote,  "to 
push  or  intrude  myself  into  such  delicate  and  difficult 
functions.  Now,  however  (if  only  you  will  press  my  suit 
and  help  me  to  the  best  of  your  power),  my  country  calls 
me,  as  does  that  most  congenial  state  of  life  amongst  those 
to  whom  I  am  most  closely  united  both  by  nature  and 
friendship.  Do  not  refuse  me;  nor,  in  such  a  dearth  of 
workers,  blush  to  reward  my  lengthy  studies  and  daily 
labours.  It  is  neither  honour,  glory,  ambition,  nor  even  the 
greatness  of  the  stipend  that  impels  me;  but,  I  call  God  to 
witness,  I  am  influenced  by  His  glory,  my  own  conscience, 
my  native  soil,  and  the  office  itself."  *   Lawrence  Humphry, 

1  1  Zur.,  p.  55,  No.  24,  16th  November,  1559. 

2  Parker  Corresp.,  p.  65,  No.  59,  30th  April,  1559. 

3  P.R.O.  Dom.  Eliz.,  VI,  No.  32.  4  Ibid.,  XX,  No.  18,  Latin. 


THE  OLD  EPISCOPATE  AND  THE  NEW     229 

stern  Puritan  though  he  was,  in  saluting  Cecil  on  occasion 
of  the  new  year  "to  the  glory  of  God,  your  comfort  and 
our  commodity,"  found  himself  moved  by  "conscience  and 
good  reason"  to  secure, if  possible,  his  own  preferment;  or, 
as  he  explained  this  conscientious  desire  further  on  in  the 
letter,  "moved  of  necessity  and  not  for  profit  or  pleasure; 
of  a  care  of  my  family,  and  not  for  love  of  having  much." 

However,  although  the  Queen  and  her  advisers  had  not 
shown  such  precipitation  in  providing  places  for  the  re- 
turned exiles  as  their  estimate  of  themselves  and  their 
necessities  had  prompted  them  to  look  for,  nevertheless  it 
had  been  indicated  with  sufficient  clearness  that  a  change 
was  coming.  No  effort  was  made  to  fill  the  bishoprics 
vacant  at  the  Queen's  accession,  to  which  might  be  added  the 
other  vacancies  that  had  been  so  rapidly  created  by  death. 
Rather  it  was  determined  to  empty  the  remaining  Sees  of 
their  occupants,  and  then  to  supply  all  with  prelates  en- 
tirely subservient  to  the  royal  will,  for  the  Queen  and  Cecil 
had  discovered  during  the  sitting  of  Parliament  that  as 
the  bishops  there  assembled  would  never  be  bent  to  con- 
formity and  to  the  acceptance  of  the  royal  Supremacy,  they 
would  have  to  be  got  rid  of  by  the  process  of  legal  de- 
privation. Plans  v/ere  already  being  formulated  as  if  these 
Sees  were  actually  vacant.  Thus,  in  a  paper  drawn 
up  about  May,  1559,2  may  be  seen  a  list  of  twenty -six 
"spiritual  men  without  promotion  at  this  present."  It  in- 
cludes three  ex-bishops  of  Henrician  or  Edwardine  ap- 
pointment, six  future  bishops,  two  future  deans,  and  a 
residue  who  never  attained  to  high  promotion  after  all, 
probably  on  account  of  their  attitude  of  hostility  to  the 
Book  of  Common  Prayer.  The  next  paper  in  the  same 
volume  of  Elizabethan  documents3  of  about  the  same  date 

1  P.R.O.  Dom.  Eliz.,  xxi,  No.  5,  8th  January,  1 561-2. 

■  Ibid.,  iv,  No.  38. 

3  Ibid.,  iv,  No.  39.  The  precise  date  is  not  determinable ;  but  the 
latest  date  that  can  be  assigned  to  it,  must  be  one  some  appreciable 
time  before  the  first  of  the  appointments  which  actually  took  place 
which  is  a  departure  from  the  proposals  it  makes. 


230    THE  OLD  EPISCOPATE  AND  THE  NEW 

(May,  1559)  contains  a  series  of  jottings  in  Cecil's  own 
handwriting,  wherein  he  tabulates  the  Sees,  writing  oppo- 
site each  one  the  names  of  divines  whom  he  evidently  sug- 
gests as  the  most  suitable  to  be  placed  over  them.  Thus 
Parker  is  bracketed  with  Canterbury;  Bill,  with  London 
(changed  to  Grindal) ;  Whitehead,  with  Norwich  (changed 
to  Cox);  Pilkington,  with  Chichester  (changed  to  Barlow); 
Sandys,  with  Hereford  (changed  to  Scory) ;  Home  is 
given  Winchester;  Sampson,  Salisbury;  Jewel,  Lincoln; 
Bentham,  Coventry  and  Lichfield;  Nowell,  Carlisle;  Beacon, 
Rochester;  Pullen,  Chester;  Davis,  Worcester;  Aylmer, 
Gloucester;  Wisdom, Bangor;  and  Ghest,St.  Asaph's;  while 
Pedder,  Lever,  and  Alley,  although  appearing  in  the  list, 
have  no  promotion  suggested  for  them.  The  interest  of 
this  list  lies  in  its  foreshadowing  many  of  the  appointments 
which  in  a  few  months  actually  took  effect,  and  that,  too, 
months  before  some  of  the  Sees  were  vacated ;  but  it  must 
be  noted  also  that  every  one  of  those  who  subsequently 
became  bishops  did  not  obtain  the  See  here  projected  for 
him  by  Cecil,  while  others  here  marked  out  to  be  bishops 
had  finally  to  content  themselves  with  deaneries,  and  others, 
again,  with  nothing.  The  value,  then,  of  the  list  consists  in 
furnishing  a  proof  that  before  the  day  of  limit,  before  even 
the  Sees  were  legally  at  the  Queen's  disposal,  Cecil  had 
already  determined  in  his  own  mind  that  they  should  be 
vacant,  and  in  pursuance  of  that  eventuality  had  drawn 
up  a  scheme  for  filling  them  with  men  v/ho  would  work 
in  the  interests  of  the  changes  projected  or  effected  by 
Parliament. 

Goodrich,  as  more  than  once  referred  to  already,  had 
drawn  up  a  plan  for  the  alteration  of  religion,  as  early  as 
December,  1558.  Only  a  few  weeks  before,  Nicholas  Heath, 
Archbishop  of  York  and  Lord  Chancellor  of  England,  had 
proclaimed  Elizabeth  as  Queen,  with  commendable  loyalty 
and  warmth  of  devotion.  Nothing  had  happened  to  show 
that  his  fellow  bishops  were  not  in  full  accord  with  his  senti- 
ments ;  nevertheless  Goodrich  thought  right  to  counsel  that 
"  before  any  pardon  published  after  the  old  manner  at  the 


UN'  . 
THE  OLD  EPISCOPATE  AND  THE  NEW     2^1 

Coronation,  that  certain  of  the  principal  prelates  be  com- 
mitted to  the  Tower."  '  The  suggestion,  though  not  carried 
out  in  its  entirety,  nevertheless  furnished  the  motive  for  im- 
prisoning White  and  Watson.  But  imprisonment  alone  was 
not  enough:  the  chief  opponents  of  change  must  be  removed 
for  good  and  all,  and  be  replaced  by  others,  as  outlined  in 
Cecil's  memoranda.  And  here  the  belief  in  themselves  enter- 
tained by  the  returned  exiles  found  expression ;  for,  so  cer- 
tain were  they  from  the  first  that  the  contemplated  changes 
would  necessarily  work  in  their  favour,  that  they  did  not 
hesitate  to  conjecture  as  to  who  amongst  them  would  be 
selected  for  the  coveted  posts.  Thus  Jewel,  writing  to  Peter 
Martyr  on  some  date  unknown  before  the  end  of  May,  1559, 
said,  "Some  of  our  friends  are  marked  out  for  bishops; 
Parker  for  Canterbury;  Cox  for  Norwich;  Barlow  for  Chi- 
chester; Scory  for  Hereford,  and  Grindal  for  London;  for 
Bonner  is  ordered  to  vacate  his  See."  2  Writing  later,  on  1st 
August,  Jewel  told  Martyr  that  "  some  of  us  are  appointed 
to  bishoprics:  Cox  to  Ely;  Scory  to  Hereford;  Allen  to 
Rochester ;  Grindal  to  London ;  Barlow  to  Chichester ;  and 
I,  the  least  of  the  apostles,  to  Salisbury."3  This  letter  is  a 
curious  comment  on  the  source  of  jurisdiction.  At  the  date 
of  writing,  Jewel  was  not  yet  elected,  the  conge  d'elire  being 
issued  only  on  27th  July ; 4  yet,  on  the  strength  of  that  instru- 
ment, he  spoke  of  himself,  correctly,  as  already  appointed. 
Allen  never  became  bishop  of  Rochester,  though  he  was 
down  in  Cecil's  memoranda  for  it.    He  died  soon  after. 

The  main  preoccupation  of  the  chief  advisers  of  the 
Queen  was  to  select  a  suitable  person  for  the  primatial  See 
of  Canterbury.  On  him,  whoever  he  should  be,  a  weighty 
burthen  would  lie.  On  him  would  fall  the  duty  and  respon- 
sibility of  shaping  the  destinies  of  the  new  settlement  of  re- 

1  P.R.O.  Dom.  Eliz.,  1,  No.  69. 

2  I  Z?/r.,  No.  9.  As  Bonner  was  deprived  on  30th  May,  the  letter 
must  have  been  written  before  that  date.  The  other  Sees  here  men- 
tioned were  already  vacant  by  the  death  of  their  former  occupants. 

3  Ibid.,  No.  16,  1st  August,  1559. 

4  Rymer,  Foedera,  xv,  pp.  536-7. 


232     THE  OLD  EPISCOPATE  AND  THE  NEW 

ligion,  so  that  on  the  one  hand  anything  distinctively  Roman 
should  be  avoided  and  abolished,  while  the  aim  was  to  secure 
as  wide  a  comprehensiveness  as  possible,  avoiding,  as  far 
as  might  be,  so  violent  a  break  with  the  past  as  wholly  to 
alienate  the  sympathy  and  adhesion  of  that  section  of  the 
nation  which  seemed  disposed  to  hold  fast  to  the  Pope  at  all 
costs.  A  man  was  wanted  who  should  be  at  the  same  time 
revolutionary  and  conciliatory;  learned,  and  yet  not  a 
schoolman ;  one  to  whom  all  could  look  up  as  a  man  above 
reproach.  And  Cecil,  knowing  the  man  who  seemed  most 
adequately  to  satisfy  the  required  conditions, "laid  hands  on 
him  as  the  one  sensible  man  within  his  reach,  who  was  re- 
ligious without  being  a  fanatic,  and  Christian  without  being 
a  dogmatist.  .  .  .  Parker's  name  alone  redeems  the  first  list 
of  Elizabeth's  bishops  from  entire  insignificance."  ' 

Matthew  Parker  was  born  at  Norwich  on  6th  August, 
1 504,  and  when  sixteen  years  of  age  entered  Corpus  Christi 
College,  Cambridge.  Here  he  took  his  degrees,  was  ordained 
priest,  and  was  elected  to  a  Fellowship.  Promotion  came  to 
him  rapidly:  he  became  chaplain  to  Anne  Boleyn,and  in  1552 
Dean  of  Lincoln.  In  Mary's  reign  he  was  deprived  of  all  his 
preferments  on  the  ground  of  being  married ;  but  he  lived 
quietly  in  retirement  and  therefore  escaped  molestation 
and  the  necessity  of  having  to  fly  abroad  to  avoid  risk  to  life 
or  liberty.  Through  his  connection  with  Anne  Boleyn  he 
was  naturally  known  to,  and  liked  by,  Queen  Elizabeth,  and 
he  had  friends  of  weight  at  Court  in  the  persons  of  Sir 
Nicholas  Bacon  and  Sir  William  Cecil,  both  his  contemp- 
oraries at  Cambridge.  At  the  very  dawn  of  the  new  era, 
these  powerful  statesmen  had  cast  their  eyes  on  Matthew 
Parker  as  a  fit  instrument  for  their  ecclesiastical  purposes. 
Between  9th  and  20th  December,  1558,  Parker  had  written 
to  Sir  Nicholas  Bacon :  "  I  received  your  letters  to  this  effect, 
that  I  should  repair  up  unto  you  at  London,  upon  occasion, 
as  ye  wrote,  which  may  turn  me  to  good.  ...  I  would  be 
inwardly  heavy  and  sorry  that  [Sir  W.  Cecil's]  favourable 
affection  should  procure  me  anything  above  the  reach  of 
1  Froude,  Hist,  of  Engl.,  vii,  p.  175. 


THE  OLD  EPISCOPATE  AND  THE  NEW     233 

mine  ability.  .  .  .  But  to  tell  you  my  heart,  I  had  rather 
have  such  a  thing  as  [the  mastership  of]  Benet  College  is  in 
Cambridge,  a  living  of  twenty  nobles  by  the  year  at  most, 
than  to  dwell  in  the  Deanery  of  Lincoln,  which  is  two  hun- 
dred at  the  least."  '  But  he  was  destined  to  something  higher 
than  the  mastership  of  a  college  or  a  deanery ;  and  on  30th 
December,  Sir  William  Cecil,  "  the  Queen's  Highness  mind- 
ing presently  to  use  your  service  in  certain  matters  of  im- 
portance," summoned  him  to  London ;  "  at  which  your  com- 
ing up  I  shall  declare  unto  you  her  Majesty's  further  plea- 
sure, and  the  occasion  why  you  are  sent  for." 2  Sir  Nicholas 
Bacon  added  his  injunctions  to  those  of  the  Secretary.3  On 
Parker's  arrival  in  London,  some  hint  must  have  been  given 
to  him  of  what  was  in  contemplation,  his  advice  must  have 
been  asked,  or  an  order  conveyed  to  him  to  formulate  his 
views  in  writing  on  the  choice  of  a  primate;  for,  on  1st 
March,  1558-9,  he  wrote  at  considerable  length  to  Bacon, 
painting  an  admirable  picture  of  the  kind  of  man  who  ought 
to  be  chosen  for  the  archiepiscopal  office.  "  I  shall  pray  to 
God  ye  bestow  that  office  well,"  he  wrote ;  "  ye  shall  need 
care  the  less  for  the  residue.  God  grant  it  chanceth  neither 
on  arrogant  man,  neither  on  faint-hearted  man,  nor  on 
covetous  man.  The  first  shall  both  sit  in  his  own  light,  and 
shall  discourage  his  fellows  to  join  with  him  in  unity  of  doc- 
trine, which  must  be  their  whole  strength;  for  if  any  heart- 
burning be  betwixt  them,  if  private  quarrels  stirred  abroad 
be  brought  home,  and  so  shall  shiver  them  asunder,  it  may 
chance  to  have  that  success  which  I  fear  in  the  conclusion 
will  follow.  The  second  man  should  be  too  weak  to  com- 
mune with  the  adversaries,  who  would  be  the  stouter  upon 
his  pusillanimity.  The  third  man  not  worth  his  bread,  pro- 
fitable for  no  estate  in  any  Christian  commonwealth,  to  serve 
it  rightly."  4  This  remarkable  analysis  closely  portrayed  the 
character  of  many  of  the  men  subsequently  chosen  to  fill 
the  vacant  Sees:  the  covetous,  "  profitable  for  no  estate  .  .  . 
to  serve  it  rightly";    the  arrogant,  "sitting  in  their  own 

1  Parker  Corresp.,  No.  41.  -  Ibid.,  No.  43. 

3  Cf.  ibid.,  No.  44.  l  Ibid.,  No.  46. 


234    THE  OLD  EPISCOPATE  AND  THE  NEW 

light";  the  pusillanimous,  cringing  before  Elizabeth  and 
Cecil ;  and  a  shrewd  hit  at  Richard  Cox  "  if  private  quarrels 
stirred  abroad  be  brought  home,"  who  he  feared  might 
perhaps  be  selected  for  the  post,  through  the  connection  he 
had  formerly  had  with  Edward  VI.  The  letter  then  went 
on,  though  in  veiled  language,  to  emphasise  the  writer's 
own  personal  unfitness  both  in  mind  and  body  for  the  great 
office.  But  Elizabeth  and  her  trusty  councillors  were  al- 
ready resolved  on  their  choice.  After  a  lapse  of  more  than 
two  months,  during  which  the  momentous  Bills  of  Supre- 
macy and  Uniformity  were  being  hotly  debated  in  Parlia- 
ment and  engaging  all  Bacon's  attention,  he  was  free,  after 
the  close  of  the  session,  to  think  of  Parker.  On  17th  May, 
"  perceiving  this  day,  by  a  resolution  made  in  the  Queen's 
Highness'  presence  "  that  Parker  had  been  designated  for 
the  archbishopric  and  that  he  would  not  be  permitted  to 
escape  the  burthen,  Bacon  wrote  to  inform  him  of  the  fact, 
at  the  same  time  adding:  "If  I  knew  a  man  to  whom 
the  description  made  in  the  beginning  of  your  letter  [above] 
might  more  justly  be  referred  than  to  yourself,  I  would  pre- 
fer him  before  you ;  but  knowing  none  so  meet,  indeed  I  take 
it  to  be  my  duty  to  prefer  you  before  all  others,  and  the 
rather  also  because  otherwise  I  should  not  follow  the  advice 
of  your  own  letter."1  Accordingly,  on  19th  May,  Parker 
was  summoned  to  repair  speedily  to  London ; 2  and  a  more 
urgent  message  followed  on  28th  of  the  same  month.3  At  an 
undetermined  date,  but  almost  certainly  in  June,  Parker  had 
received  the  formal  offer  of  the  high  post;  whereupon,  to  his 
infinite  credit,  he  wrote  to  the  Queen  herself,  disparaging  his 
own  fitness  and  ability.  "  I  have  understanding  of  your  most 
favourable  opinion  toward  me  .  .  .  concerning  the  arch- 
bishopric of  Canterbury  .  .  .  yet  calling  to  examination  my 
great  unworthiness  for  so  high  a  function  ...  I  am  bold 
.  .  .  beseeching  your  honour  to  discharge  me  of  that  so  high 
and  chargeable  an  office,  which  doth  require  a  man  of  much 
more   wit,   learning,   virtue,   and    experience  .  .  .  besides 

1  Parker  Corresp.,  No.  51.  2  Ibid.,  No.  52. 

3  Ibid.,  No.  53. 


THE  OLD  EPISCOPATE  AND  THE  NEW     235 

many  other  imperfections  in  me  as  well  for  temporal  ability 
...  as  also  infirmity  of  body."  '  Shortly  after  this  he  learnt 
from  his  constant  friend  Bacon  that  "  the  former  resolution 
concerning  you  is  now  confirmed  by  a  second." "  Further 
resistance  being  plainly  useless,  he  acquiesced ;  and  his 
acceptance  of  the  primatial  See  must  soon  have  become 
matter  of  common  knowledge,  for  Machyn  notes  that  he 
was  elected  on  23rd  June.  This  is  clearly  an  error,  for  the 
conge  d'elire  was  issued  only  on  18th  July.3  The  delay  over 
his  election  may  be  accounted  for  by  the  absence  of  the 
Dean  of  Canterbury,  Doctor  Nicholas  Wootton,  who  was 
in  France  concluding  the  treaty  of  Cateau  Cambresis;  but, 
on  19th  July,  the  Queen  directed  a  commission  "  to  the 
Reverend  Father  in  God  Matthew  Parker,  nominated  Bishop 
of  Canterbury,  and  Edmund  Grindal,  nominated  Bishop  of 
London,"  and  others,  for  the  tendering  of  the  oath  of  Su- 
premacy, and  for  repressing  opposition  by  word  or  deed  or 
printing,  to  the  new  order  in  religion.4  Doctor  Wootton  was 
back  at  Canterbury  by  the  end  of  the  month; '  and  then, by 
an  arrangement  previously  made,  the  four  prebendaries  who 
appeared  for  the  election  on  1st  August  left  the  choice  to 
the  Dean,  who  thereupon  selected  Matthew  Parker;  and  his 
election  was  straightway  ratified  by  the  prebendaries." 

It  may  be  noted  that  a  week  later  the  Archbishop-elect 
signed  an  order  to  Cambridge  University  as  "Mattheue 
Cant," '  and  on  27th  August  signed  a  letter  to  the  Council 
as  "  Matth.  C." 8  Estcourt  lays  stress  on  this  slip  as  "  per- 
haps owing  to  their  entertaining  the  notion  ...  of  the 
election  being  the  most  important  part  of  the  process,  that 
Parker  and  the  others  began  to  use  the  episcopal  style  and 
title  at  once."  9  A  controversialist  might  feel  himself  entitled 
to  make  a  point  out  of  this  matter  of  etiquette;  but  no  such 

1  Parker  Corresp.,  No.  54.  -  Ibid.,  No.  55. 

3  Rymer,  Foedera,  xv,  pp.  536-7.       4  P.R.O.  Dom.  Eliz.,  v,  No.  18. 

5  Ibid.,  Foreign,  No.  nil. 

6  Haddan's  Bramhall,  vol.  iii,  pp.  190-7. 

7  Parker  Corresp.,  No.  56,  8th  August,  1559. 

8  Ibid.,  No.  58.  9  Anglican  Ordinations,  p.  85. 


236    THE  OLD  EPISCOPATE  AND  THE  NEW 

question  need  be  raised  here.  Even  an  official  document  to 
some  of  the  bishops-elect,  dated  20th  October,  gives  them 
the  title  of  Bishop  without  the  qualification; x  hence  it  need 
cause  no  surprise  if  they  themselves,  without  the  opportunity 
of  being  trained  by  older  bishops,  fell  into  such  a  simple 
mistake.  By  October,  however  they  had  evidently  made 
themselves  acquainted  with,  and  conformed  to,  usage  and 
precedent,  for  five  of  these  new  prelates  signed  a  joint  letter 
to  the  Queen  with  the  correct  limitations.2 

The  royal  assent  to  Parker's  election  was  given  on  9th 
September,  and  a  mandate  was  issued  for  his  consecration, 
addressed  to  certain  bishops.3  Bacon  forwarded  to  Parker 
this  "  royal  assent,  sealed  and  delivered  within  two  hours 
after  the  receipt  thereof,  wishing  unto  you  as  good  success 
therein  as  ever  happed  to  any  that  have  received  the 
like."4 

This  mandate  was  directed  to  four  of  the  five  bishops  still, 
at  that  date,  in  possession  of  their  Sees,  namely,  the  aged 
Tunstall  of  Durham,  Bourne  of  Bath  and  Wells,  Poole  of 
Peterborough,  and  Kitchin  of  Llandaff,  omitting  Turberville 
of  Exeter.  But  joined  with  these  were  Barlow  and  Scory,  ex- 
Bishops  of  Bath  and  Wells  and  Chichester  respectively,  who 
had  fled  the  realm  during  Mary's  reign.  It  cannot  be  doubted 
that  three  of  the  bishops  named,  Tunstall,  Bourne,  and 
Poole,  refused  point-blank  to  take  any  part  in  the  consecra- 
tion. Perhaps  Kitchin  did  so  likewise,  seeing  that  eventually 
he  had  no  share  in  it.  But  in  any  case,  Kitchin,  Barlow,  and 
Scory  by  themselves  did  not  suffice  to  satisfy  the  legal  re- 
quirements.5   The  Act  of  25  Henry  VIII,  c.  20,  laid  down 

1  Rymer,  Foedera,  xv,  p.  546. 

2  Parker  Corresp.,  No.  68,  about  15th  October,  1559. 

3  Rymer,  Foedera,  xv,  p.  541. 

4  Parker  Corresp.,  No.  61,  9th  September,  1559. 

5  Messrs.  Denny  and  Lacey,  in  their  joint  work  De  Hierarchia 
Anglicana,  p.  9,  distinctly  say:  Quae  tamen  litterae,  renuentibus 
Tuustallo  Dtinelmensi,  Bournio  Bathonensi  et  Polo  Petriburgensi, 
irritae  Jiebant ;  and,  in  a  note,  lay  down  the  principle  that  de  litteris 
patentibus  tali  modo  editis  ut  falsarias  introduci  prorsus  impossibile 
sit;  vide  Mason,  Vindic.  Feci.  Angl.,  lib.  iii,  cap.  18. 


THE  OLD  EPISCOPATE  AND  THE  NEW     237 

that  on  any  vacancy  of  the  archiepiscopal  See,  the  royal 
mandate  should  be  issued  to  any  other  archbishop  and  two 
bishops;  or,  failing  another  archbishop,  to  "four  bishops 
within  this  realm,  or  within  any  other  the  King's  domin- 
ions." This  clause  created  a  hitch  in  the  proceedings,  and 
delayed  the  consecration ;  the  delay  so  caused  was  prolonged 
through  other  circumstances  connected  with  the  temporali- 
ties of  the  Sees,  to  which  reference  will  be  made  presently. 
Meanwhile,  certain  of  the  Sees  were  provided  with  bishops. 
Thus  John  Scory  was  elected  by  the  Chapter  of  Hereford 
on  15th  July,  1559,1  in  compliance  with  the  conge  d'elire 
issued  on  the  previous  22nd  June.2  Barlow  was  also  ac- 
cepted by  the  Chapter  of  Chichester  about  the  same  time, 
but  the  exact  date  is  not  known.  The  conge  d'elire  for  that 
diocese,  as  for  London,  was  issued  at  the  same  time  as 
Scory's.  Edmund  Grindal  was  "  nominated "  to  London, 
and  so  referred  to  in  a  royal  commission  dated  19th  July,3 
whereas  his  formal  election  took  place  only  on  26th  July, 
1 559-4  This  appointment  was  quickly  followed  by  that  of 
Richard  Cox  to  Ely  on  28th  July,  15  59/  the  conge  d'elire 
being  dated  the  1 8th  of  the  same  month,  as  was  Parker's 
for  Canterbury."  John  Jewel,  also,  was  selected  for  promo- 
tion at  about  the  same  time  as  the  foregoing  batch ;  for  the 
notification  of  the  Queen's  pleasure  to  the  Chapter  of  Salis- 
bury was  dated  27th  July.7  This  body  dutifully  chose  him 
for  their  bishop  on  2 1  st  August,  1 5  59/  It  will  be  noted  that, 
with  the  exception  of  the  diocese  of  London,  these  appoint- 
ments were  all  to  Sees  actually  vacant  by  the  deaths  of  their 
late  occupants.  In  Rymer's  Foedera9  are  given  two  copies 
of  a  conge' d'elire  issued  to  the  Dean  and  Chapter  of  Roches- 
ter, the  first  dated  27th  July,  1559,  the  second  22nd  June, 

1  P.R.O.  Dom.  Eliz.,  v,  No.  16.         2  Rymer,  Foedera,  xv,  p.  532. 

3  P.R.O.  Dom.  Eliz.,  v,  No.  18. 

*  Cooper,  Athenae  Cantab.,  i,  p.  471. 

5  Diet.  Nat.  Biogr.,  xii,  p.  413.  6  Rymer,  Foedera,  xv,  p.  536. 

7  Ibid.,  xv,  p.  537. 

8  P.R.O.  Dom.  Eliz.,  XI,  No.  12. 

9  Vol.  xv,  pp.  537  and  566. 


238     THE  OLD  EPISCOPATE  AND  THE  NEW 

1560.  The  earlier  one  was  abortive.  Jewel  mentions  Ed- 
mund Allen  as  then  Bishop-designate ; '  but  Allen  died  to- 
wards the  end  of  August,  and  was  buried  on  the  30th.2  But 
then  came  an  unexpected  pause.  No  further  conges  cTelire 
were  issued  for  some  time,  and  those  expecting  preferment 
doubtless  wondered  what  the  reasons  could  be,  and  what 
might  be  about  to  happen.  Thus,  Edmund  Ghest  was  down 
on  Cecil's  list  as  a  prospective  candidate  for  the  See  of  St. 
Asaph  in  May  (?),  1559.3  In  the  meanwhile,  as  he,  probably, 
knew  nothing  of  the  good  things  projected  for  him,  and 
nevertheless  desiderated  some  sort  of  lucrative  post  for  him- 
self, he  cast  about  for  a  likely  and  imminent  vacancy,  and 
having  found  one,  wrote  to  Cecil  on  31st  August,  1 559,  when 
after  considerable  expenditure  of  paper  and  circumlocution 
to  wrap  up  and  palliate  his  objective,  he  finally  stated  the 
real  purpose  of  his  letter.  "  I  do  well  understand  by  my 
friends  that  you  wish  me  no  less  than  I  do  sue  for  (God  re- 
ward you  for  it).  Sir,  your  honour  knoweth  that  Mr.  Seth 
Holland,  Dean  of  Worcester,  will  not  renounce  the  Pope,  but 
as  he  came  from  him  not  long  since,  so  he  is  thought  he  will 
shortly  return  to  him  again.  Whom  though  he  hath  left  in 
place,  yet  he  hath  not  left  in  heart.  Wherefore  most  humbly 
I  beseech  you  to  be  so  good  master  unto  me,  as  to  be  a 
suitor  to  the  Queen's  Highness  that  I  may  succeed  him  in 
his  Deanery  of  Worcester." 4 

Ghest's  application  for  a  deanery  was  answered  by  the 
bestowal  of  a  bishopric ;  but,  as  has  been  pointed  out,  for 
this  he  had  to  wait  a  while.  The  explanation  seems  to  be, 
in  his  case  as  in  that  of  several  others,  that  the  plan  in- 
vented during  the  session  of  Parliament  lately  ended  had 
been  found  to  work  so  exceedingly  well  for  the  enrich- 
ment of  the  Crown  at  the  expense  of  the  Church,5  that 
the  Queen's  councillors  took  .advantage  of  the  vacancies  of 
the  Sees  to  keep  them  unfilled  for  some  considerable  time 
while  they  effected  the  exchange  of  episcopal  lands  for  im- 

1  I  Zur.,  No.  16,  1st  August,  1559.  2  Ibid.,  p.  46  note. 

3  P.R.O.  Dom.  Eliz.,  iv,  No.  39. 

4  Ibid.,  XX,  No.  18;  XXI,  No.  5.  5   1  Eliz.,  c.  19. 


THE  OLD  EPISCOPATE  AND  THE  NEW     239 

propriate  tithes.    Till  this  object  was  attained,  the  Sees 
might  wait  for  pastors. 

Even  before  the  Act  was  available  as  an  instrument,  the 
royal  claim  to  the  impounding  of  the  temporalities  of  vacant 
Sees  as  a  source  of  revenue  was  eagerly  enforced  by  the 
Council  almost  immediately  upon  Elizabeth's  accession.  On 
24th  December,  1558,  the  minutes  of  the  Privy  Council  re- 
cord the  despatch  of  "  a  letter  to  the  Lord  Treasurer  [Mar- 
quess of  Winchester]  to  cause  process  to  be  made  with  all 
speed  out  of  the  Exchequer  for  the  answering  of  the  tem- 
poralities of  these  bishoprics,  viz.: — Canterbury,  Norwich, 
Rochester,  Bristol,  Oxon,  Chichester,  Hereford,  Sarum, 
Gloucester  and  Bangor,  signifying  also  unto  his  Lordship 
that  the  Queen's  Majesty's  pleasure  is  that  Sir  John  Mason 
shall  have  the  care  to  see  this  presented  with  speed.  .  .  .  "  l 
As  other  vacancies  occurred,  either  by  death  or  deprivation, 
the  temporalities  of  the  Sees  concerned  were  taken  posses- 
sion of  by  the  Queen's  commissioners.  On  13th  September, 
1559,  letters  were  directed  by  the  Queen  to  the  Lord  Trea- 
surer, the  Marquess  of  Winchester,  Sir  Richard  Sackville, 
Sir  Walter  Mildmay,  and  Mr.  Kellaway,  "  knowing  your 
approved  wisdoms,  diligences,  and  dexterities  in  such 
causes  "  as  she  truly  expressed  it.2  The  duty  which  was  im- 
posed upon  them  was  to  examine  the  certificates  of  bishops' 
lands  with  a  view  "to  consider  what  parcel  of  the  said 
lands,  tenths,  and  hereditaments  shall  be  meetest  for  Us  to 
take  into  our  hands  and  possessions";  and  right  well  did 
they  acquit  themselves  of  the  task  with  which  they  had 
been  entrusted ;  for,  when  the  new  incumbents  entered  on 
their  respective  Sees,  they  soon  found  that  the  best  portions 
of  their  landed  estates  had  been  torn  away  to  reward  the 
real  or  pretended  services  of  various  courtiers  or  their  de- 
pendents. Even  before  being  put  in  possession,  however, 
of  these  attenuated  temporalities,  as  soon  as  the  bishops- 
elect  began  to  look  into  the  accounts  of  their  new  Sees,  they 

1  Harl.   MS.   169,   No.   1,  f.   i6b,  Draft  of  the  Acts  of  the  Privy 
Council. 

2  P.R.O.  Dom.  Eliz.,  vi,  No.  42. 


240    THE  OLD  EPISCOPATE  AND  THE  NEW 

realised  that  the  exchanges  now  being  effected  were  wholly 
one-sided,  altogether  to  the  advantage  of  the  Crown.  As 
Strype  expresses  it  in  his  Life  of  Parker,  the  exchange 
meant  that  the  Queen  could  convert  the  temporal  revenues 
of  the  Sees,  "  or  part  thereof,  unto  herself,  settling  in  ex- 
change church-lands  in  lieu  thereof,  such  as  impropriations 
formerly  belonging  to  monasteries  dissolved,  and  tenths; 
taking  into  her  own  hands  good  old  lordships  and  manors 
for  them.  The  inequality  of  which  exchanges  was,  that  to 
these  impropriations  were  oftentimes  considerable  charges 
annexed,  by  necessary  reparations  of  houses  and  chancels, 
and  yearly  pensions  payable  out  of  them.  And  tenths  would 
often  fall  short  and  be  unpaid  by  reason  of  the  poverty,  or 
inability,  or  death  of  the  poor  curates  and  ministers.  Nor 
could  the  bishops  have  any  good  title  to  them,  it  being 
doubtful  whether  they  could  be  alienated  from  the  Crown, 
being  by  Act  of  Parliament  given  to  it."  l  This  was  not  at 
all  to  the  fancy  of  the  new  bishops,  two  of  whom,  Scory  and 
Barlow,  had,  previous  to  this  reign,  enjoyed  not  inconsider- 
able revenues.  Five  of  the  bishops-elect  accordingly  jointly 
memorialised  the  Queen,  reminding  her  that  Henry  VIII 
had  encouraged  ministers,  and  that  they  trusted  to  her  for 
like  favour ;  and  therefore  begged  her  to  stay  the  present 
proceedings  of  which  they  complained.  They  even  proposed 
to  meet  her  wishes  by  some  sort  of  compromise,  the  bishops 
of  the  Southern  Province  offering  to  compound  for  their 
estates  by  a  lump  sum  of  1,000  marks  payable  yearly.  They 
had  apparently  no  great  confidence  that  this  suggestion 
would  prove  acceptable,  for  they  formulated  an  alternative 
scheme  whereby  to  lessen  the  loss  they  feared ;  and  further 
craved  the  indulgence  of  being  allowed  to  receive  the  half- 
year's  rents  due  the  preceding  Michaelmas,  and  also  that  the 
payment  of  First-Fruits  might  be  both  reduced  and  spread 
over  a  longer  period.2 

The  answer  to  this  appeal  took  the  form  of  a  Queen's 
mandate  to  the  Lord  Treasurer  and  the  Barons  of  the  Ex- 
chequer, under  date  26th  October,  1559,  wherein  is  recited 
VI,  p.  88.  2  Cf.  Parker  Corresp.,  No.  68. 


THE  OLD  EPISCOPATE  AND  THE  NEW     241 

the  fact  that  the  bishops-elect  remain  "unmade,"  z>.,uncon- 
secrated,  because  the  proposed  exchange  of  temporalities 
with  the  Crown  was  still  unsettled.  The  officials  were  there- 
fore directed  to  effect  the  completion  of  the  exchange  ex- 
peditiously, but  in  such  a  way  as  not  too  seriously  to 
cripple  the  episcopal  revenues,  and  their  petition  for  the 
Michaelmas  rents  was  granted,  "  as  of  our  reward,  towards 
the  maintenance  of  their  charges."  '  Particular  attention  is 
invited  to  the  specific  reason  alleged  for  the  delay  in  the 
"  making  "  of  three  out  of  the  five  and  the  induction  of  the 
other  two,  already  bishops.  This  fact,  as  also  the  refusal  of 
the  Marian  bishops  to  perform  the  ceremony,  must  be  the 
cause  of  the  unique  circumstance  of  the  issue  of  a  second 
mandate  to  certain  bishops  to  proceed  to  the  "  making  "  of 
the  Metropolitan.  The  same  document  that  had  stayed 
the  "  making  "  of  Parker,  Grindal,  and  Cox,  directed  the 
commissioners  "  to  proceed  to  the  like  exchange  with  the 
rest  of  the  bishoprics  that  be  richly  endowed,  as  York,  Win- 
chester, Durham,  Bath,  Sarum,  Norwich,  Worcester  " ;  and 
this  process  of  exchange  was  to  be  completed  "with  all  speed 
possible  ...  so  as  upon  election  of  men  meet  for  those 
rooms,  the  same  may  be  placed  with  convenient  speed."2 

When  this  matter  was  settled,  needless  to  say,  entirely  to 
the  satisfaction  of  the  Queen  and  her  Council,  a  new  royal 
assent  to  the  election  of  Matthew  Parker  as  Archbishop  of 
Canterbury  was  issued  on  6th  December,  15  59,"  embodying 
also  a  commission  to  certain  bishops  to  proceed  to  his  con- 
secration. The  ecclesiastics  named  were  Anthony  Kitchin 
of  Llandaff,  the  only  Marian  bishop  who,  by  accepting  the 
new  order,  had  retained  his  See;  William  Barlow,  lately 
Bishop  of  Bath  and  Wells,  now  elect  of  Chichester;  John 
Scory,  lately  Bishop  of  Chichester,  now  elect  of  Hereford  ; 
Miles  Coverdale,  once  Edwardine  Bishop  of  Exeter;  John  ' 
Hodgkyns,  formerly  suffragan  Bishop  of  Bedford;  John 
Salisbury,  formerly  suffragan  Bishop  of  Thetford;  and  John 
Bale,  ex-Bishop  of  Ossory  in  Ireland. 

1  P.R.O.  Dom.  Eliz.,  VII,  No.  19,  26th  October,  1559.  2  Ibid. 

3  Rymer,  Foedera,  xv,  p.  549.  4  By  Rymer  named  Richard. 

R 


242     THE  OLD  EPISCOPATE  AND  THE  NEW 

Although  the  way  seemed  now  to  be  clear  for  proceeding 
to  the  long-delayed  consecration,  the  difficulties  confronting 
Parker  were  only  beginning.  Cecil  and  Bacon  were  cogni- 
sant of  them.  A  paper  is  extant '  of  quite  extraordinary 
interest.  Canon  Estcourt  has  produced  it  in  facsimile  in  his 
Anglican  Ordinations?-  On  the  left  side  of  the  paper  there 
are  marginal  notes  by  Cecil,  and  in  the  right-hand  margin 
appears  one  in  Parker's  handwriting.  This  document  gives 
the  steps  to  be  taken  in  the  matter  of  the  consecration. 
The  Calendar  of  the  Record  Office  ascribes  this  paper  to 
July,  1559;  but  internal  evidence  shows  that  it  cannot  have 
been  drawn  up  before  30th  September;  for  Cecil  notes 
"  there  is  no  archbishop  nor  4  bishops  now  to  be  had."  This 
could  not  have  been  correct  before  Tunstall's  deprivation ; 
after  that  event  there  were  available  only  Kitchin,  Bourne, 
and  Poole.  Again,  the  steps  to  be  taken  commence  with  a 
reference  to  the  "  Significavit " — the  royal  assent ;  hence 
Parker's  election  had  already  taken  place  when  the  memor- 
andum was  made;  and  that  election,  as  has  been  already 
stated,  was  made  and  ratified  on  1st  August.  The  document 
reads  as  follows:  "  1.  Suit  to  be  made  for  the  Queen's  Let- 
ters Patents,  called  '  Significaverunt',  to  be  addressed  to  the 
Archbishop  of  the  Province,  for  the  confirmation  of  the 
elect,  and  for  his  consecration.  [Cecil's  marginal  note: 
"  The  copy  of  this  would  be  sent  hither."]  2.  When  the  See 
archiepiscopal  is  vacant,  then  after  election,  like  Letters 
Patents  for  the  confirmation  of  the  elect  are  to  be  direct  to 
any  other  archbishop  within  the  King's  dominions.  If  all 
be  vacant,  to  four  bishops  to  be  appointed  by  the  Queen's 
Letters  Patents,  declaring  her  Grace's  assent  royal  with  re- 
quest for  his  consecration  and  Pall.  [Cecil's  note:  "There 
is  no  archb.  nor  4  bishops  now  to  be  had.  Wherefore 
Querendum,  Stc.']^   3.  The  fealty  for  the  Temporalities  of 

1  P.R.O.  Dom.  Eliz.,  v,  No.  25. 

2  P.  86. 

3  The  official  who  drafted  this  memorandum,  drew  it  up  evidently 
according  to  precedent,  not  according  to  knowledge  of  the  royal  inten- 
tions.   He  did  not  advert  to  the  fact  of  the  breach  with  Rome  and  the 


THE  OLD  EPISCOPATE  AND  THE  NEW     243 

the  See  is  to  be  made  to  her  Majesty.  The  Oath  also  to  be 
given.  And  the  ordinary  fees  to  be  paid  to  her  Majesty's 
officials.  [Parker's  marginal  note:  "Anno  15,  Henr.  VIII, 
cap.  20,  the  order  is  set  out  at  large,  so  that  the  restitution 
to  the  temporalities  is  done  after  the  consecration,  as  it 
seemeth  to  me,  by  the  said  Act."]  4.  The  consecration  is  to 
be  on  such  a  Sunday  as  the  consecrators  with  the  assent  of 
the  consecrand  shall  accord.  And  in  such  place  as  shall  be 
thought  most  requisite.  5.  The  order  of  King  Edward's 
Book  is  to  be  observed,  for  that  there  is  none  other  special 
made  in  this  last  session  of  Parliament.  [Cecil's  note: 
"This  book  is  not  established  by  Parliament"]" 

It  will  be  seen,  then,  that  Cecil  raises  two  difficulties  or 
objections;  the  first,  "that  there  is  no  archbishop  nor  four 
bishops  now  to  be  had,"  because  Kitchin  was  the  only  one  of 
those  who  might  possibly  be  found  willing  to  act,  who  tech- 
nically and  legally  fulfilled  the  conditions  of  the  definition 
of  a  "  Bishop  within  the  King's  dominions,"  as  laid  down  by 
the  Act,  25  Hen.  VIII,  c.  20.  Barlow,  Scory,  Coverdale, 
and  Bale  had  been  legally  deprived  of  their  Sees,  while 
Salisbury  and  Hodgkyns  had  no  legal  status,  having  been 
merely  suffragan  bishops.  The  second  objection  raised  by 
Cecil  was  that  the  particular  rite  to  be  followed  at  the  con- 
secration had  not  at  that  moment  any  legal  and  recognised 
standing;  it  had  been  promulgated  by  Edward  VI,  but  it 
had  been  abrogated  by  Mary;  and,  as  Cecil  drily  notes: 
"  this  book  is  not  established  by  [the]  Parliament  [just 
closed]."  Hence  he  added  "  Querendum " :  the  difficulties 
likely  to  arise  from  these  objections  ought  to  be  more  fully 
and  carefully  considered.  In  order  to  find  some  way  out 
of  these  embarrassments,  the  debatable  points  were  sub- 
mitted to  certain  canonists  and  lawyers,  who,  after  closely 
scrutinising  the  points,  drew  up  another  commission  for 
the  confirmation  and  consecration  of  Matthew  Parker  in 
the  usual  form,  but  with  the  addition  of  "  a  clause  dis- 

past  effected  by  Act  of  Parliament  as  recently  as  the  previous  May ; 
he,  therefore,  inadvertently  inserted  the  clause  based  on  the  ancient 
custom  of  petitioning  the  Holy  See  for  the  Pall. 


244     THE  OLD  EPISCOPATE  AND  THE  NEW 

pensing  with  any  disabilities  in  the  acts  done  by  them 
under  it."  ' 

The  "  Supplentes  "  clause  runs  thus,  translated  from  the 
Latin :  "  we  nevertheless  supply,  by  our  supreme  royal 
authority,  acting  upon  our  own  mere  motion  and  certain 
knowledge,  if  anything  in  these  matters  according  to  our 
aforesaid  mandate  should  be  done  by  you,  or  there  should 
be  wanting  or  shall  be  wanting,  either  in  you  or  any  of  you, 
as  to  your  condition,  state,  or  faculties,  of  those  things 
which  are  required  by  the  statutes  of  this  our  realm  or  by 
the  ecclesiastical  laws  made  on  this  behalf,  or  are  necessary 
for  fulfilling  the  aforesaid  [commission],  the  time  and  cir- 
cumstances being  taken  into  account."  2  The  original  draft 
in  the  Record  Office  differs  from  the  Patent  enrolment 
copy,  inasmuch  as  it  contains  the  following  additional 
clause  signed  by  the  jurisconsults  who  drew  it  up.  "We 
whose  names  be  here  subscribed  do  think  in  our  own  judg- 
ments that  by  this  commission  in  this  form  penned,  as  well 
the  Queen's  Majesty  may  lawfully  authorise  the  persons 
within  named  to  the  effect  specified,  as  the  said  persons 

1  Estcourt,  Anglican  Ordinations,  p.  88.  The  original,  signed  by 
the  six  who  drafted  it,  now  in  P.R.O.  Dom.  Eliz.,  vn,  No.  56,  differs  but 
slightly,  and  in  unimportant  words,  from  the  deed  engrossed  on  the 
Patent  Rolls,  whence  it  is  printed  in  Rymer,  Foedera,  xv,  p.  549.  It 
may  be  noted  that  Hodgkyn's  Christian  name  is  mistakenly  given  in 
this  document  as  Richard.  An  argument  has  been  founded  on  this 
circumstance  against  the  authenticity  of  the  commission ;  but  this 
cannot  be  upheld  ;  the  draft  was  submitted  to  Cecil  for  his  supervision ; 
the  clerk  who  copied  it  did  not  know  the  name  of  Bale's  See  in  Ireland 
and  left  a  blank  space  for  it,  which  Cecil  filled  in  himself  in  his  well- 
known  handwriting:  "  Oseresi  EpoP  The  mistake  about  Hodgkyn's 
Christian  name,  being  so  trivial,  escaped  his  usually  lynx-eyed  detec- 
tion even  of  minute  errors. 

2  P.R.O.  Dom.  Eliz.,  VII,  No.  56.  Supplentes  nihilotninus  suprema 
auctoritate  nostra  regia  ex  mero  motu  et  certa  scientia  nostris,  si  quid 
aut  in  his  quae  juxta  mandatum  nostrum  praedictum  per  vosfient,  aut 
in  vobis  aut  vestrum  aliquo,  conditioner  statu,  facultate  vestris,  ad 
praemissa  facienda  desit,  aut  deerit,  eorum  quae  per  statuta  hujus 
nostri  regni  aut  per  leges  ecclesiasticas  in  hac  parte  requiruntur  aut 
necessaria  sunt,  temporis  ratione  et  rerum  necessitate  id  postulante. 


THE  OLD  EPISCOPATE  AND  THE  NEW     245 

may  exercise  the  act  of  confirming  and  consecrating  in  the 
same  to  them  committed.  Signed:  William  Mey,  Robert 
Weston,  Edward  Leedes,  Henry  Harvy,  Thomas  Yale, 
Nicholas  Bullingham." 

Summarising  Canon  Estcourt's  analysis  of  this  document, 
it  may  be  pointed  out  that  in  a  matter  about  which  such 
great  care  was  exercised,  and  on  which  so  many  legal  minds 
had  been  at  work,  every  word  used  would  have  been  signifi- 
cant, and  would  have  been  employed  in  a  strictly  legal  and 
technical  sense.  Thus  the  clause  "  in  his  quaejuxta  manda- 
tum  nostrum  per  vos  fient"  [in  those  things  which  shall  be 
done  by  you  according  to  our  mandate],  appears  to  refer  to 
their  use  of  a  form  that  was  without  legal  sanction,  namely, 
King  Edward's  Ordinal,  which  was  admitted  by  Cecil  to 
be  "  not  established  by  Parliament,"  because  Mary's  repeal 
of  it  had  not  been  rescinded.  It  is  noteworthy  that,  in  the 
Register,  mention  of  the  Book  used  is  carefully  avoided,  and 
the  reference  to  it  is  that  it  was  "  published  by  authority  of 
Parliament."  " Facultate"  may  be  understood  to  refer  to  the 
jurisdiction  of  the  consecrating  prelates.  Kitchin,  alone,  had 
no  canonical  right  to  consecrate  a  bishop,  and  none  of  the 
others  had  jurisdiction  to  perform  any  episcopal  act  what- 
soever. The  Queen  therefore  took  on  herself  to  supply  this 
jurisdiction  from  the  supreme  authority  vested  in  her  by  the 
recent  Act  of  Parliament.  That  a  purely  lay  organisation  ! 
has  the  power  to  confer  such  purely  spiritual  powers  is 
wholly  denied.  "  Conditione  "  appears  to  define  their  legal 
position  as  not  fulfilling  the  description  of  "  Bishops  within 
this  realm  or  any  other  of  the  King's  dominions  "  as  laid 
down  and  required  by  the  Act  of  25  Henry  VIII,  c.  20. 
"Statu"  opens  out  the  whole  field  of  controversy  as  to  Bar- 
low's alleged  defect  of  consecration,  since  it  means,  technic- 
ally, "  the  ecclesiastical  state."  This  question  need  not  here 
be  discussed,  since  the  objections  of  Catholics  to  the  validity 
of  Parker's  consecration  rest,  not  on  Barlow's  qualifications, 
but  on  the  validity  or  invalidity  of  the  Form  used;  and  that 

1  This  is  strictly  true  in  this  particular  case,  as  no  bishop  voted  for 
these  Acts. 


246     THE  OLD  EPISCOPATE  AND  THE  NEW 

point  has  been  set  at  rest  for  ever  for  Catholics  by  the  de- 
cision of  Leo  XIII  contained  in  the  Bull  Apostolicae  Curae, 
issued  on  1 3th  September,  1 896.  Were  it  proved  to  demon- 
stration that  Barlow  had  been  duly  consecrated, the  objection 
of  Catholic  theologians  to  the  validity  of  Parker's  consecra- 
tion would  still  stand  in  full  force;  it  is  difficult, however,  in 
face  of  the  grave  doubts  that  exist  as  to  Barlow's  having 
ever  been  consecrated,  to  explain  why  he  was  selected  as  the 
consecrating  prelate.  It  has  been  suggested  that  his  name 
gave  an  appearance  of  connection  with  the  old  hierarchy  in 
which  he  had  held  the  Sees  of  St.  David's  and  Bath  and 
Wells.  Scory,  Coverdale,  and  Bale  had  been  consecrated 
according  to  King  Edward's  Ordinal;  therefore,  the  value 
of  their  consecration  stands  or  falls  by  the  validity  or 
invalidity  of  that  Ordinal;  and  Leo  XIII's  Bull  has  given 
the  final  and  adverse  decision.  Strype  admits  that  this  ques- 
tion of  the  validity  of  the  Form  used  is  the  real  issue,  and 
not  the  lack  of  due  qualification  in  Barlow,  nor  the  farce  of 
the  Nag's  Head  fable.  "  But  before  this  fable  came  to  light 
(which  was  not  heard  of  a  great  many  years  after  Parker's 
consecration),"  so  he  wrote,  "  it  was  the  old  Papists'  prime 
endeavour  to  invalidate  his  ordination.  For  they  knew,  if 
they  could  bring  it  about  that  he  was  no  true  archbishop  or 
bishop,  then  as  a  sequel  all  the  bishops  that  he  afterwards 
consecrated  should  be  no  bishops,  because  he  was  none  him- 
self, and  therefore  could  not  consecrate  nor  give  Orders  to 
others  .  .  .  their  great  argument  in  those  days  to  prove  our 
Archbishop's  ordination  to  be  null  was,  that  he  was  made 
Archbishop  by  King  Edward's  Book  of  Ordination,  which 
had  been  repealed  under  Queen  Mary,  and  not  restored  by 
authority  of  Parliament  when  he  was  consecrated." l  Strype, 
relying  on  Parker's  Register,  maintains  that  the  contention 
that  the  Ordinal  was  not  restored  is  false :  against  this,  we 
have  it  on  Cecil's  word,  who  presumably  knew  best,  that  at 
the  moment  it  was  not  a  legal  formulary.  That,  of  course, 
in  itself  would  have  affected  only  the  liceity,  and  not  the 
validity  of  Orders;  but  even  had  Strype  been  correct  in  his 
1  Life  of  Parker,  I,  p.  160. 


THE  OLD  EPISCOPATE  AND  THE  NEW     247 

statement,  Parliament  is  incompetent,  in  matters  purely 
spiritual  in  their  nature,  to  vote  that  to  be  valid  which  Canon 
Law  and  ecclesiastical  authority  declare  to  be  insufficient 
and  consequently  invalid.  The  Edwardine  Ordinal  has  all 
along  from  the  very  beginning  been  declared,  at  least  impli- 
citly, by  the  Roman  Church  to  be  deficient  in  essential  parti- 
culars, and  hence  Rome  has  always  steadily  rejected  and  re- 
fused to  recognise  as  valid,  Orders  conferred  by  its  means. 
Nor  should  it  be  forgotten  that  the  omission  of  certain  forms 
and  ceremonies  held  by  the  Catholic  Church  to  be  essential 
to  the  integrity  of  the  Sacrament  of  Orders,  was  the  subject 
of  boast  at  the  time,  by  the  very  men  participating  in  the 
Acts  referred  to.  Thus  Jewel,  writing  on  2nd  November, 
1 559,  to  Josiah  Simler,  said:  "  As  to  your  expressing  your 
hopes  that  our  bishops  will  be  consecrated  without  any 
superstitious  and  offensive  ceremonies,  you  mean,  I  suppose, 
without  oil,  without  the  Chrism,  without  the  tonsure.  And 
you  are  not  mistaken ;  for  the  sink  would  indeed  have  been 
emptied  to  no  purpose,  if  we  had  suffered  those  dregs  to 
settle  at  the  bottom.  Those  oily,  shaven,  portly  hypocrites 
we  have  sent  back  to  Rome  from  whence  we  first  imported 
them ;  for  we  require  our  bishops  to  be  pastors,  labourers, 
and  watchmen." 1  This  letter  does  not,  of  course,  cover  the 
whole  ground  of  the  dispute  between  Catholics  and  Angli- 
cans; but  it  is  a  valuable  contemporary  corroboration  of  the 
spirit  that,  as  Catholics  maintain,  animated  the  Elizabethan 
reformers.  Their  views  informed  the  intention  with  which 
they  acted,  and  explain  the  exact  powers  they  meant  to 
convey  by  ordination,  and  thus  limited  what  they  trans- 
mitted to  those  who  hold  their  "  spiritual  "  powers  in  direct 
descent  from  them,  precisely  within  the  bounds  they  then 
set.  Bishop  Pilkington,  who,  it  must  surely  be  allowed, 
spoke  with  knowledge  and  authority,  says:  "In  Durham  I 
grant  the  Bishop  that  now  is  [Pilkington  himself]  and  his 
predecessor  [Cuthbert  Tunstall]  were  not  of  one  religion  in 
divers  points,  nor  made  Bishops  after  one  fashion.  This  [Pil- 
kington] has  neither  cruche  [crozier]  nor  mitre,  never  sware 
1  I  Z«r.,  No.  22. 


248     THE  OLD  EPISCOPATE  AND  THE  NEW 

against  his  Prince  his  allegiance  to  the  Pope;  this  has 
neither  power  to  christen  bells,  nor  hallow  chalices  and 
superaltars,  &c,  as  the  other  had ;  and  with  gladness  praises 
God  that  keeps  him  from  such  filthiness,  .  .  .  God  defend 
all  good  people  from  such  religion  and  bishops."  ' 

Hodgkyns  and  Salisbury  had  been  consecrated  according 
to  the  Catholic  Pontifical,  and  it  is  an  extraordinary  cir- 
cumstance that  neither  one  of  these,  about  whose  consecra- 
tion there  hung  no  shadow  of  doubt,  was  invited  to  be  the 
chief  consecrating  prelate  on  the  occasion  of  Parker's  con- 
secration. Kitchin,  although  summoned  to  take  part  in  that 
ceremony,  excused  himself  or  absented  himself  from  Lon- 
don on  some  pretext;  he  took  no  part  in  it.  In  his  absence, 
Barlow,  Scory,  Coverdale,  and  Hodgkyns,  acting  in  virtue 
of  the  Queen  s  commission,  dated  5th  December,  proceeded 
on  9th  December  to  Bow  Church,  Cheapside,  and  there 
carried  out  the  customary  formalities  of  confirmation. 
Parker  was  not  himself  present  on  the  occasion,  but  by  the 
mouth  of  his  proxy,  Nicholas  Bullingham,  took  the  oath 
of  the  Queen's  Supremacy.2  The  minutes  of  this  transaction 
are  preserved  in  Parker's  Register.  All  legal  requirements 
having  now  been  fulfilled,  the  "  making  "  of  the  first  Pro- 
testant Archbishop  of  Canterbury  by  the  Protestant  rite  3 
took  place  on  Sunday,  17th  December,  1559,  in  the  chapel 
of  Lambeth  Palace.  The  "  consecrators "  were  the  four 
ecclesiastics  above  named  as  having  carried  out  the  cere- 
mony of  confirmation.  A  full  and  minute  account  of  this  im- 
portant and  epoch-making  function  was  carefully  drawn 
up,  and  has  been  made  accessible  in  various  publications, 
where  it  may  be  consulted.1  By  this  eventful  act  was  the 
ancient  hierarchy  of  England  supplanted,  and  the  Eliza- 

1  Parker  Soc.  Publ.  Pilkington's  Works,  p.  586.  "  The  Burning  of 
St.  Paul's." 

3  Denny  and  Lacey,  De  Hier.  Angl.,  p.  14,  §  16. 

3  Cranmer  had  been  consecrated  by  the  Catholic  Pontifical,  and 
took  his  oath  of  allegiance  to  the  Pope,  having  beforehand,  in  secret, 
declared  that  he  would  do  so  without  prejudice  to  Henry's  interests. 

4  Cf.  P.R.O.  Dom.  Eliz.,  vn,  Nos.  68,  69;  Denny  and  Lacey,  De 
Hier.  Angl.,  App.  iii,  p.  208  ;  Parker's  Register. 


THE  OLD  EPISCOPATE  AND  THE  NEW     249 

bethan  settlement  of  religion  was  at  last  furnished  with  its 
ecclesiastical  and  episcopal  head.  Froude's  words  may  fitly 
find  a  place  here,  as  he  rightly  points  out  that  "  a  Catholic 
bishop  holds  his  office  by  a  tenure  untouched  by  the  acci- 
dents of  time";  and  then  goes  on  to  say:  "  The  Anglican 
hierarchy,  far  unlike  its  rival,  was  a  child  of  convulsion  and 
compromise;  it  drew  its  life  from  Elizabeth's  throne,  and, 
had  Elizabeth  fallen,  it  would  have  crumbled  into  sand. 
The  Church  of  England  was  a  limb  lopped  off  from  the 
Catholic  trunk;  it  was  cut  away  from  the  stream  by  which 
its  vascular  system  had  been  fed  ;  and  the  life  of  it,  as  an 
independent  and  corporate  existence,  was  gone  for  ever. 
But  it  had  been  taken  up  and  grafted  upon  the  State.  If 
not  what  it  had  been  in  its  essence,  it  could  retain  the  form 
of  what  it  had  been — the  form  which  made  it  respectable, 
without  the  power  which  made  it  dangerous.  The  image  in 
its  outward  aspect  could  be  made  to  correspond  with  the 
parent  tree;  and  to  sustain  the  illusion,  it  was  necessary  to 
provide  bishops  who  could  appear  to  have  inherited  their 
powers  by  the  approved  method,  as  successors  of  the  Apos- 
tles" ;  but,  as  he  truthfully,  if  cynically  admits,  the  Anglican 
Episcopate  is  "  a  thing  merely  of  this  world — a  convenient 
political  arrangement." ] 

A  word  needs  to  be  said  about  the  legend  of  the  Nag's 
Head.  The  fact  of  the  consecration  of  Archbishop  Parker 
in  the  chapel  of  Lambeth  Palace  seems  to  be  as  reliably 
attested  as  any  one  other  fact  in  English  history.  Hence 
the  Nag's  Head  story  is  mentioned  only  for  the  sake  of  re- 
pudiating it.  At  one  time  grave  doubts  were  cast  on  the 
reliability  of  the  record  in  Parker's  Register,  and,  indeed,  on 
the  allegation  that  any  function  whatsoever  had  taken  place 
at  Lambeth.  A  fable  gained  currency,  and  did  duty  in  con- 
troversy for  many  long  years,  to  the  effect  that  the  indi- 
viduals who  were  deputed  to  carry  out  Parker's  consecration 
met  him  at  a  tavern  in  Cheapside,  called  the  Nag's  Head, 
and  there  went  through  a  travesty  of  the  sacred  rite.2    Low 

1  Hist,  of  Engl.,  vn,  p.  174. 

2  Cf.  Strype,  Life  of  Parker,  I,  pp.  117  sqq. 


250    THE  OLD  EPISCOPATE  AND  THE  NEW 

as  may  be  our  opinion,  on  legitimate  grounds,  of  Barlow  or 
Scory;  little  as  Coverdale  may  have  believed  in  the  efficacy 
of  Orders  as  a  sacrament ;  we  have  nevertheless  the  known 
piety,  soberness,  moderation,  and  integrity  and  the  general 
uprightness  of  Matthew  Parker  himself  to  fall  back  upon  ; 
and  these  alone  should  shield  him  from  the  imputation  of 
having  lent  himself,  or  that  he  could  possibly  lend  himself 
in  any  way,  to  the  perpetration  of  such  a  meaningless  and 
impious  act.  The  Nag's  Head  fable,  the  source  of  so  much 
bitter  feeling  in  the  past  between  Catholics  and  Protestants 
in  their  controversies  and  differences,  has  been  long  ago 
exploded.  As  a  serious  cause  of  dispute  it  should  never 
again  waste  time  and  space. 

According  to  the  concept  of  the  episcopal  office  and 
character  that  is  received  in  the  Church  of  England  as  by 
law  established,  Parker  was  duly  and  legally  a  bishop  and 
the  head  ecclesiastical  official  of  the  realm.  Acting  in  that 
exalted  capacity  he  proceeded  at  once  to  supply  the  other 
vacant  Sees  with  pastors,  and  in  pursuance  of  this  object, 
went  on  20th  December  to  Bow  Church,  Cheapside,  and 
there  confirmed  the  elections  of  Grindal,  Cox,  Sandys, 
Meyrick,  Scory,  and  Barlow.1  On  the  morrow,  St.  Thomas's 
Day,  2 1  st  December,  the  new  Archbishop,  using  the  same 
rite  as  that  by  which  he  had  a  few  days  before  been  conse- 
crated, "  made"  Grindal  Bishop  of  London,  Cox  Bishop  of 
Ely,  Sandys  Bishop  of  Worcester,  and  Meyrick  Bishop  of 
Bangor.  On  21st  January,  1560,  five  more  Sees  were  pro- 
vided with  pastors  in  the  persons  of  Young  for  St.  David's, 
Bullingham  for  Lincoln,  Jewel  for  Salisbury,  Davies  for  St. 
Asaph,  and  Ghest  for  Rochester.  On  2nd  March  Pilking- 
ton  was  consecrated  Bishop  of  Durham,  and  on  the  same 
day  Best  was  provided  to  the  See  of  Carlisle.  Later  in  the 
month  (24th)  Berkeley  and  Bentham  were  made  Bishops  of 
Bath  and  Wells  and  Coventry  and  Lichfield  respectively.2 
Thus  were  nearly  all  the  Sees  which  had  become  vacant 

1  Strype,  Life  of  Parker,  I,  p.  125. 

2  Ibid.,  I,  pp.  125-7  ;  Stubbs'  Episcopal  Successio?i,  pp.  82-3. 


THE  OLD  EPISCOPATE  AND  THE  NEW     251 

by  death  or  deprivation,  refilled  by  reformers  ;  the  re- 
mainder of  the  Sees  were  not  provided  with  bishops  till 
later. 

The  delay  had  been  long  and  tedious.  When  at  last  the 
new  order  was  launched  and  got  under  way,  an  attempt 
was  made  to  make  up  for  lost  time;  but  the  narrative  of 
those  events  belongs  to  another  chapter.  It  ought,  however, 
in  justice  to  be  mentioned  that  while  some  of  the  new  pre- 
lates had  certainly  sought  promotion,  others  had  as  earn- 
estly endeavoured  to  avoid  it.  Thus,  Edwin  Sandys,  writing 
to  Peter  Martyr  at  a  later  date  (1st  April,  1560),  after  in- 
forming him  that  in  the  preceding  August  he  had  gone  to 
the  North  by  the  Queen's  command  "as  an  inspector  and 
Visitor  as  they  call  it,  for  the  purpose  of  removing  the 
abuses  of  the  Church,  and  restoring  to  it  those  rites  which 
are  consistent  with  true  religion  and  godliness,"  he  added 
that  on  his  return  to  London,  "  my  services  were  required 
by  the  Queen  for  the  government  of  the  See  of  Worcester; 
and  the  episcopal  office  is  at  length  imposed  upon  me, 
though  against  my  inclination.  I  wished,  indeed,  altogether 
to  decline  this  bishopric,  as  I  did  that  of  Carlisle,  to  which 
I  had  been  nominated  before ;  but  this  could  not  be  done 
without  drawing  upon  myself  the  displeasure  of  the  Queen, 
and  in  some  measure  deserting  the  Church  of  Christ." l  Park- 
hurst,  too,  told  Josiah  Simler  (20th  December,  1559)  that  "  I 
myself  also  was  to  be  enrolled  among  their  number;  but  I 
implored  some  of  our  leading  men,  and  my  intimate  friends, 
that  my  name  should  be  erased  from  the  list  which  the 
Queen  has  in  her  possession ;  and  ...  I  have  hitherto  .  .  . 
kept  my  neck  out  of  that  halter.  When  I  was  lately  in 
London,  one  of  the  Privy  Councillors,  and  Parker,  the 
Archbishop  of  Canterbury,  threatened  me  with  I  know  not 
what  bishopric.  But  I  hope  for  better  things;  for  I  can 
not  be  ambitious  of  so  much  misery." 2  He  was  elected, 
nevertheless,  Bishop  of  Norwich  on  13th  April,  1560,3  and 

1  1  Zur.,  No.  31.  2  Ibid.,  No.  26. 

3  Diet.  Nat.  Biogr.,  XLIII,  p.  308. 


252     THE  OLD  EPISCOPATE  AND  THE  NEW 

thus  Sampson,  to  whom  that  See  had  previously  been 
offered,  and  by  whom  it  had  been  refused,  may  be  added 
to  those  who  at  that  time,  on  various  pleas,  urged  Nolo 
Episcopari.1 

1   I  Zur.,  No.  32,  13th  May,  1560. 


CHAPTER  VII 

THE  UNIVERSITIES 

IN  tracing  the  course  of  the  Reformation,  a  prominent 
place  must  necessarily  be  given  to  the  influence  exerted 
on  and  by  the  Universities,  as  being  the  chief  centres  of 
learning,  the  nurseries  of  the  Episcopate,  and,  indeed,  of  the 
vast  majority  of  the  holders  of  spiritual  preferment.  Calvin 
endeavoured  to  impress  this  view  of  their  importance  on 
the  youthful  Edward  VI,  telling  him  they  were  "the  seed- 
plots  of  future  pastors.1 

Both  Oxford  and  Cambridge  had  their  share  in  the 
vicissitudes  of  the  various  phases  of  the  Reformation. 
Cambridge  was  in  advance  of  Oxford  in  embracing  the 
movement  for  reform,  and  this  was  recognised  at  an  early 
period.  Burcher,  advocating  the  calling  in  of  another 
German  as  a  successor  to  Bucer  at  Cambridge,  wrote  thus 
to  Henry  Bullinger,  as  early  as  ioth  August,  1551:  "  Nor 
will  he  find  the  Cambridge  men  so  perversely  learned  as 
Master  Peter  [Martyr]  found  those  at  Oxford.  For  the 
scholars  of  that  University  have  been  always  suspected  of 
heresy,  as  they  call  it,  by  the  ancient  members,  learned 
and  unlearned;  by  which  you  may  easily  judge  that  their 
studies  have  always  been  of  a  purer  character  than  those  at 
Oxford.  For  from  thence  came  forth  Cox,  Hooper,2  and 
(whom  I  ought  to  mention  in  the  first  place),  Cranmer,  and 
other  most  learned  men  of  that  class."  3 

It  might  be  difficult,  it  would  certainly  be  fruitless,  to 

1  in  Zur.,  p.  710,  No.  336. 

2  This  is  incorrect;  he  was  an  Oxford  man. 
:1  ill  Zur.,  p.  680,  No.  322. 


254  THE  UNIVERSITIES 

enquire  into  the  causes  that  effected  this  difference;  it  is 
enough  to  recognise  the  fact.  But  it  may  help  the  student 
of  these  times  and  events,  if  a  bird's-eye  view  of  the  con- 
nection with  either  University  of  the  chief  actors  in  the 
religious  tragedy  of  the  sixteenth  century  can  be  obtained. 
Thus,  of  the  principal  laymen  nurtured  in  either  seat  of 
learning,  Oxford  proudly  claims  Blessed  Thomas  More, 
Henry  VII I's  great  Chancellor,  and  then,  at  a  great  dis- 
tance from  him,  the  bold,  if  violent,  lawyer  and  canonist,  Dr. 
Storey;  and,  as  opposed  to  them,  Sir  John  Mason.  Against 
this  trio  may  be  ranged  another  three  from  the  sister  Uni- 
versity, all  of  the  first  rank  of  importance,  who  exercised  on 
the  course  of  events  unlimited  influence  in  the  direction  of 
reform.  These  are  Sir  Nicholas  Bacon,  Sir  William  Cecil, 
afterwards  Lord  Burghley,  and  Sir  Francis  Walsingham. 
Indeed,  but  for  these  three,  the  Elizabethan  settlement  of 
religion  would  have  been  impossible.  To  them,  more  than 
to  any  other  three  men,  the  final  separation  from  Rome 
may  be  ascribed,  and  amongst  those  three  Bacon  and  Cecil 
in  point  of  time  take  precedence  of  Walsingham. 

Turning  to  the  Episcopate,  it  is  noticeable  that  Cam- 
bridge produced  most  reforming  bishops,  Oxford  on  the 
other  hand  furnishing  the  majority  of  those  who  suffered 
deprivation  under  Elizabeth. 

In  the  earlier  period,  that  is,  before  Elizabeth's  reign, 
the  only  reforming  bishop  of  historic  importance  hailing 
from  Oxford  is  John  Hooper,  Bishop  of  Gloucester  and 
Worcester.  On  the  Catholic  side  are  Cardinals  Wolsey 
and  Pole,  and  Archbishop  Warham.  Cambridge  produced 
Cardinal  Fisher  and  Bishops  Stephen  Gardiner  of  Win- 
chester and  George  Day  of  Chichester,  against  John  Poynet, 
Miles  Coverdale,  and  the  "  martyrs  " — Thomas  Cranmer, 
Archbishop  of  Canterbury,  Hugh  Latimer,  and  Nicholas 
Ridley.  Coming  to  Elizabethan  worthies,  the  contrast 
becomes  very  marked.  Cambridge  reared  fewer  Catholic 
bishops  than  did  Oxford.  Oxford  claims  as  sons  the 
following  reforming  bishops:  Young,  Jewel,  Parkhurst, 
Berkeley,  Barlow,  Bentham,  Bullingham,  "foul-mouthed" 


THE  UNIVERSITIES  255 

Bale,  and  the  discredited  Kitchin;  nine,  against  the  fol- 
lowing twelve  recusant  prelates:  Cardinal  Allen,  Arch- 
bishop Heath,  and  Bishops  Bonner,  Bourne,  Goldwell, 
Oglethorpe,  Pates,  Poole,  Tunstall  (of  both  Universities), 
Turberville,  White,  and  Abbot  Feckenham.  Cambridge 
can  muster  only  Bishops  Bayne,  Scott,  Thirlby,  Tunstall 
(of  both  Universities),  and  Watson,  five  in  all,  against  more 
than  double  that  number  of  reformers,  namely,  Archbishop 
Matthew  Parker,  together  with  Grindal,  Sandys,  Cox, 
Home,  Pilkington,  Ghest,  Scory,  Scambler,  Aylmer,  and 
Cheyney.  Cambridge  can  show  only  three  lesser  churchmen 
of  special  note,  namely,  Edward  Dering,  Gabriel  Goodman, 
and  Thomas  Sampson,  all  reformers;  but  not  a  single 
Catholic  champion  hailed  from  the  banks  of  the  Cam. 
Oxford,  on  the  contrary,  can  unfold  a  very  different  story. 
Martin  Bucer  and  Peter  Martyr,  reformers  from  abroad, 
held  professorial  chairs  there.  Foxe,  the  Martyrologist, 
Lawrence  Humphrey,  the  Puritan,  and  Dean  Alexander 
Nowell,  make  up  the  tale  of  prominent  Oxford  reformers. 
On  the  Catholic  side  a  brilliant  constellation  of  divines, 
historians,  and  ecclesiastics,  well-nigh  dazzles  us.  The 
names  of  the  following  celebrated  persons  rep/esent  every 
kind  of  learning  and  activity:  John  Boxall,  Henry  Cole, 
Alan  Cope,  Maurice  Clenock,  William  Chedsey,  Thomas 
Dorman,  Roger  Edgeworth,  Richard  Bristow,  Seth  Hol- 
land, the  two  Harpsfields  (Nicholas  and  John),  Thomas 
Stapleton,  Thomas  Harding,  Nicholas  Sander,  Gregory 
Martin,  John  Marshall,  Edward  Rishton,  Richard  Smith, 
John  Bridgewater,  Edmund  Campion,  and  Robert  Persons. 
Lesser  names  on  either  side  might  swell  these  lists  inde- 
finitely, but  are  not  needful. 

The  above  are  perhaps,  it  may  be  urged,  mere  lists  of 
names;  but  behind  each  one  lies  the  activity  of  a  life,  the 
influence  its  bearer  exercised  upon  his  neighbours,  the  con- 
tribution brought  by  each  one  to  the  heated  religious  con- 
troversy that  raged,  the  efforts  each  one  of  them  made  for 
the  triumph  of  the  party  to  which  his  own  religious  con- 
victions attached   him.    As  we  pass  each  one  in    mental 


256  THE  UNIVERSITIES 

review  and  sum  up  his  share  in  the  conflict,  the  following 
results  seem  to  stand  out  clearly.  Cambridge,  speaking 
generally,  had  lost  the  Catholic  sense  much  more  fully  than 
had  Oxford.  "  Reform,"  or  rather,  intolerance  of  the  Roman 
obedience,  is  much  more  the  note  of  Cambridge  than  of 
Oxford.  Cambridge  musters  twenty-two  of  the  New  Learn- 
ing as  against  eight  Catholics;  Oxford  can  show  only  six- 
teen reformers  to  thirty-six  Catholics.  The  deduction 
follows  that  the  religious  "  atmosphere  "  of  the  respective 
Universities  must  be  held  accountable  for  this  phenomenon ; 
and  that  as  it  had  proved  with  the  leaders,  so,  conse- 
quently, it  was  to  hold  good  as  regards  the  rank  and  file. 
And  this  estimate  will  be  found  to  be  approximately 
accurate.  We  read  of  the  occurrence  of  disturbances  at 
Cambridge;  they  are  rarely  traceable  to  a  conservative 
spirit ;  instead,  the  more  sober  amongst  the  reformers  had 
to  restrain  the  intemperate  ardour  of  the  fiery  spirits  that 
were  anxious  to  force  the  pace  regardless  of  circumstances. 
At  Oxford,  on  the  other  hand,  for  many  years  after  Eliza- 
beth's reign  began,  the  troubles  arose  almost  entirely  from 
the  fact  that  the  conservative  Catholic  element  still  clung 
to  the  colleges  in  such  considerable  numbers  that  the  pro- 
gress of  the  Reformation  was  sensibly  delayed  in  their 
midst. 

These  conclusions  must  now  be  justified  by  proof. 

The  securing  of  the  Universities  by  one  party  or  the  other 
at  a  time  when  the  religious  questions  in  dispute  were  still 
in  the  balance,  would  doubtless  have  meant  much.  It  was 
capturing  the  enemy's  depot  of  supplies.  The  reformers 
who  returned  from  exile  in  1559  were  fully  alive  to  this 
aspect  of  the  situation  and  to  the  possibilities  it  involved. 
It  was  the  realisation  of  this  that  gives  point  to  Jewel's 
remark  made  to  Peter  Martyr  on  28th  April,  1559:  "In 
the  meantime  there  is  everywhere  a  profound  silence  re- 
specting schools  and  the  encouragement  of  learning.  This, 
indeed,  is  driving  out  one  devil,  as  they  say,  by  another."  * 
Writing  on  21st  May,  1559,  Parkhurst  actually  dissuaded 
1  1  Z«r.,  p.  20,  No.  7. 


THE  UNIVERSITIES  257 

Henry  Bullinger  from  his  expressed  intention  of  sending 
his  son  Rudolph  to  Oxford,  "  for  it  is  as  yet  a  den  of 
thieves,  and  of  those  who  hate  the  light.  There  are  but  few 
Gospellers  there,  and  many  Papists.  But  when  it  shall  have 
been  reformed,  which  we  both  hope  and  desire  may  ere 
long  be  the  case,  let  your  Rudolph  at  length  come  over." l 
This  advice  was  based  on  a  similar  verdict  to  that  passed 
on  Oxford  University  by  Jewel,  in  a  letter  addressed  by 
him  to  Peter  Martyr  on  20th  March,  1559.  According  to 
his  judgment,  "  Two  famous  virtues,  namely,  ignorance  and 
obstinacy  \inscitia  et  contumacia\,  have  wonderfully  increased 
at  Oxford  since  you  left  it;  religion  and  all  hope  of  good 
learning  and  talent  is  altogether  abandoned." "  When  Park- 
hurst  was  penning  his  warning  to  Bullinger,  Jewel  was  also 
writing  to  him  in  the  same  strain :  "  Our  Universities  are  so 
depressed  and  ruined,"  he  said,  "  that  at  Oxford  there  are 
scarcely  two  individuals  who  think  with  us;  and  even  they 
are  so  dejected  and  broken  in  spirit,  that  they  can  do 
nothing.  That  despicable  friar,  Soto,  and  another  Spanish 
monk,  I  know  not  who,3  have  so  torn  up  by  the  roots  all 
that  Peter  Martyr  had  so  prosperously  planted,  that  they 
have  reduced  the  vineyard  of  the  Lord  into  a  wilderness. 
You  would  scarcely  believe  so  much  desolation  could  have 
been  effected  in  so  short  a  time."  Hence  he  dissuaded  the 
Germans  from  sending  over  their  pious  youths  "either  for 
a  learned  or  religious  education,  unless  you  would  have 
them  sent  back  to  you  wicked  and  barbarous."4  "There  is 
a  dismal  solitude  in  our  Universities,"  exclaims  Jewel  to 
Martyr  on  1st  August,  1559.  "  The  young  men  are  flying 
about  in  all  directions,  rather  than  come  to  an  agreement 
in  matters  of  religion."  5  Later  in  the  same  year  Jewel  in- 
formed Martyr  that  his  old  lectureship  at  Oxford  was  being 
kept  open  for  him,  and  bewailed  that,  from  the  reformers' 
point  of  view,  of  course, "  nothing  can  be  in  a  more  desperate 

1  1  Zur.,  p.  29,  No.  12 .  2  Ibid.,  p.  II,  No.  4. 

3  John  de  Villa  Garcia;  cf.  Strype,  Mem.,  ill,  ii,  p.  473.    He  was  de- 
prived of  his  professorship  in  1559. 

4  I  Zur.,  p.  11,  No.  14,  22nd  May,  1559.         5  Ibid.,^.  40,  No.   17. 

S 


258  THE  UNIVERSITIES 

condition  than  the  [Divinity]  school  is  at  present.  You 
will  think,  that  when  you  were  formerly  there,  you  had 
employed  all  your  exertions  to  no  purpose,  so  greatly  do 
now  infelix  lolium  et  steriles  dominantur  avenaex  in  that 
harvest-ground  once  so  fruitful." 2  A  fortnight  later, 
16th  November,  he  again  reverted  to  the  state  of  the  Uni- 
versities. "  Both  our  Universities,"  he  wrote,  "  and  that 
especially  which  you  heretofore  cultivated  with  so  much 
learning  and  success,  are  now  lying  in  a  most  wretched 
state  of  disorder,  without  piety,  without  religion,  without  a 
teacher,  without  any  hope  of  revival."3  On  22nd  May, 
1560,  Jewel,  now  become  Bishop  of  Salisbury,  again  ap- 
proached the  subject  of  the  possibility  of  Martyr  being 
invited  back  to  England.  This  invitation  was  indeed 
offered  in  the  following  year,  but  was  declined.4  Jewel 
went  on,  however,  to  say  that  "in  the  meantime,  our  Uni- 
versities, and  more  especially  Oxford,  are  most  sadly 
deserted ;  without  learning,  without  lectures,  without  any 
regard  to  religion."  5 

It  is  not  altogether  easy  to  reduce  such  lamentations  to 
mathematical  terms;  and  yet  figures  will,  perhaps,  give  the 
nearest  indication  of  the  essential  truthfulness  of  Jewel's 
statement.  Unfortunate  gaps  occur  in  the  Oxford  regis- 
ter of  degrees  during  the  latter  half  of  the  fifteenth  century ; 
but  the  entries  begin  again  with  regularity  in  1 506.  From 
that  date  till  1535,  when  the  suppression  of  the  lesser 
religious  houses  began,  the  yearly  average  of  degrees 
conferred  was  127;  but  in  1535  the  number  fell  to  108, 
and  in  1536  to  44;  and  for  the  rest  of  Henry's  reign 
that  average  never  rose  to  57.  During  Edward  VI's  short 
occupation  of  the  throne  the  average  fell  still  further  to 
33,  and  it  is  worth  noting  that  in  the  years  1547  and  1550 
no  degree  of  any  kind  whatsoever  appears  to  have  been 
conferred.    Under  Mary,  however,  the  situation  had  so  far 

1  Virg.,  Georg.,  I,  154. 

2  1  Zur.,  p.  46,  No.  19,  2nd  November,  1559. 

3  Ibid.,  p.  55,  No.  24.  4  Cf.  Strype,  Ann.  1,  p.  381. 
5  1  Zur.,  p.  77,  No.  33. 


THE  UNIVERSITIES  259 

improved  that  the  degrees  conferred  show  an  average  of 
70.1  For  the  state  of  learning  at  Cambridge  reference  may- 
be made  to  a  rare  copy  in  the  possession  of  the  British 
Museum  of  a  Catalogus  Cancellariorum,  etc.,  ab  Anno  D. 
1 500  ad  annum  1 571,  of  the  University  of  Cambridge, 
bound  up  with  a  copy  of  Archbishop  Parker's  De  Anti- 
quitate B ritannicae  Ecclesiae  (1572).2  From  this  valuable  and 
reliable  compilation  it  may  be  inferred  that  although  many 
more  degrees  were  conferred  at  Cambridge  each  year  of 
Edward's  reign  than  was  the  case  at  Oxford,  the  yearly 
average  of  the  degree  of  B.A.  granted  was  only  32.4. 
During  Mary's  reign,  however,  the  Catholic  reaction  showed 
itself  so  strongly  at  Oxford  that,  as  Mr.  J.  Bass  Mullinger 
states,  at  that  University  "  the  number  of  students  had  in- 
creased in  much  greater  proportion  than  at  Cambridge."3 
He  proceeds,  moreover,  to  point  out,  in  a  note,  that  "  the 
number  of  those  admitted  B.A.  at  Oxford  during  the  years 
1555-9  was  2J6;  at  Cambridge  it  was  only  175."  Relying 
on  the  evidence  of  the  Catalogus  already  referred  to,  one 
slight  correction  may  be  suggested.  The  Cambridge  total 
was  not  175,  but  176,  giving  a  yearly  average  of  35.  It  may 
be  noted,  for  purposes  of  further  comparison,  that  during 
the  thirty  years,  1506-35,  the  yearly  average  of  Bachelor's 
degrees  had  been  44.  The  state  of  things  revealed  by  these 
figures  can  easily  account  for  the  fact  that  Matthew  Parker, 
shortly  after  his  election  to  the  See  of  Canterbury,  was 
constrained  to  license  his  old  University  to  elect  as  their 
Preacher  some  one  without  degrees,  "  in  respect  of  extreme 
necessity."4  Strype  admits  further  that  "  the  Universities 
were  now  so  much  infected  with  the  late  popish  leaven, 
that  but  few  came  up  from  thence  to  receive  Orders  from 
the  hands  of  Protestant  bishops."  J 

1  Cf.  Gasquet,  The  Eve  of  the  Reformation,  new  ed.  1900,  pp.  39,  42. 

2  B.  Mus.  C.  24,  b.  7. 

8   The  Univ.  of  Cambridge,  from  the  Royal  Injunctions  of  1535  to  the 
Accession  of  Charles  /,  p.  168. 

4  Parker  Corresfi.,  No.  66,  8th  August,  1559. 
„    5  Life  of  Grindal,  p.  74. 


26o  THE  UNIVERSITIES 

These  and  such-like  evidences  go  to  show  that  a  move- 
ment took  place  in  these  two  centres  of  learning  which  can 
only  be  explained  by  recognising  that,  in  both,  the  hold  of 
Catholicity  was  strong ;  but  the  adhesion  to  the  old  order 
was  staunchest  at  Oxford.  They  would  further  indicate 
that  an  attack  on  these  strongholds  of  opposition  to  the 
"  Queen's  Majesty's  proceedings  "  in  matters  ecclesiastical 
would  not  be  long  delayed;  because,  with  their  capture,  the 
future  might  reasonably  be  considered  assured.  When, 
therefore,  a  visitation  of  the  dioceses  of  England  and 
Wales  was  determined  upon,  the  Universities  were  naturally 
and  necessarily  included  in  this  scheme  of  reform,  and  the 
writs  of  commission  to  visit  them  were  issued  in  June,  1559. 

That  directing  the  visitation  of  Cambridge  University 
had  placed  at  its  head  Sir  William  Cecil;  and  as  Mr. 
J.  Bass  Mullinger  remarks,  he  and  his  colleagues  were  "  en- 
trusted with  exceptionally  important  functions."1  They 
were  not  only  empowered  to  reform  and  reorganise  the 
University,  but  were  especially  instructed  to  administer 
the  oath  of  Supremacy;  and,  he  goes  on  to  remark:  "if, 
among  its  eight  members,  there  were  those  to  whom  excep- 
tion might  be  taken  as  men  approaching  a  weighty  responsi- 
bility under  the  influence  of  strong  prejudices,  it  cannot  be 
denied  that,  taken  collectively,  the  names  were  well  cal- 
culated to  inspire  confidence  as  those  of  statesmen  and 
divines  .  .  .  well  qualified  for  the  task  which  lay  before 
them."  The  commissioners  were,  in  addition  to  Cecil,  Sir 
Anthony  Coke,  Dr.  Bill,  Dr.  William  Mey,  Dr.  Matthew 
Parker,  Walter  Haddon,  Thomas  Wendy,  Robert  Home,  and 
James  Pilkington.2  Mr.  Mullinger  says  that  their  written 
instructions  "  were  little  more  than  a  transcript  of  those  of 
the  commissioners  of  1549."3 

1  Hist,  of  St.  John's  College,  p.  52. 

2  Cf.  P.R.O.  Dom.  Eliz.,  iv,  No.  34. 

3  Hist,  of  St.  John's  Coll,  p.  174.  The  terms  of  the  commission  for 
the  visitation  of  Cambridge  may  be  consulted  in  P.R.O.  Dom.  Eliz., 
IV,  No.  53;  or  in  Lambeth  MS.  1166,  No.  3,  from  which  Rev.  Mr. 
Gee  prints  a  version  in  his  Elizabethan  Clergy,  pp.  133,  sqq. 


THE  UNIVERSITIES  261 

As  soon  as  the  religious  policy  of  the  new  reign  had 
sufficiently  declared  itself,  some  of  the  Heads  of  Colleges 
are  accused  of  having  endeavoured  to  turn  the  impending 
changes  to  their  own  advantage — a  line  of  conduct  in 
which  they  were  forestalled  by  the  vigilance  of  Matthew 
Parker,  who  wrote  to  Cecil:  "some  Masters  be  about  to 
resign  to  their  friends  chosen  for  their  purposes  peradven- 
ture,  to  slide  away  with  a  gain."  l  Even  at  that  early  date 
they  had  evidently  been  afraid  that  an  adverse  visitation 
might  be  held,  but  perhaps  had  brought  themselves  to 
think  that  the  danger  had  passed  away.  Parker  reminded 
Cecil  that  a  similar  attempt  had  been  frustrated  by  Queen 
Mary,  and  urged  Cecil  to  follow  the  precedent  then  set,  by 
ordering  the  Masters  to  hold  themselves  in  readiness  "  de 
coram  sistendo,  et  interim  bene  gerendo  until  farther  order"; 
for,  he  declared,  he  would  be  loth  "  Colleges  should  sustain 
hurt  by  any  sleight,  you  not  understanding  the  likelihood."2 
Thus  at  Queen's  College,  Dr.  Peacock,  the  Principal,  aided 
by  several  of  the  Fellows,  tried  to  push  through  the  election 
of  three  Fellows,  who  all  belonged  to  other  Colleges.  This 
they  evidently  did  with  a  view  to  strengthening  the  Catholic 
party  in  their  own  College,  by  filling  up  vacancies  with 
men  of  their  own  way  of  thinking  introduced  from  outside. 
An  appeal  was  made  to  Cecil,  as  Chancellor  of  the  Univer- 
sity, against  these  proceedings.  The  documents  relating  to 
the  dispute  may  be  seen  amongst  the  State  Papers.3  Dr. 
Peacock's  action  was,  if  sharp,  yet  legal,  and  in  the  upshot 
two  of  the  elections  were  confirmed;  but,  notwithstand- 
ing this  small  success,  he  thought  it  prudent  to  resign  his 
office  during  the  following  May,  after  the  proceedings  at  the 
close  of  Parliament  had  but  too  clearly  indicated  what  the 
near  future  might  entail.  A  similar  change  had  already 
taken  place  at  Trinity ;  while  Dr.  Cosyn,  the  Master  of  St. 
Catherine's,  also  retired  voluntarily  both  from  the  Vice- 

1  Parker  Corresp.,  p.  54,  No.  45,  1st  March,  1558-9. 

2  Ibid.    See   there,  also,   Queen    Mary's   orders   issued  to   Bishop 
Gardiner. 

3  P.R.O.  Dom.  Eliz  ,  ill,  Nos.  3,  29,  30,  31,  36,  37,  38. 


262  THE  UNIVERSITIES 

Chancellorship  and  from  his  College  before  the  Visitors, 
in  the  course  of  their  duties,  would  have  been  compelled  to 
eject  him. 

Dr.  Porye,  also,  informed  Cecil l  that  "  the  Mastership  or 
the  office  of  the  Master  of  Christ's  College,  in  Cambridge, 
is  at  this  present  void,  and  hath  been  so  since  Friday  or 
Saturday  last  past "  [23rd  or  24th  June].  He  went  on  to 
say  that  Dr.  William  Taylor,  the  Master  referred  to,  had 
departed  "  somewhat  strangely,  leaving  his  chamber  much 
disordered,  certain  of  his  garments  cast  in  corners,  and  the 
rushes  tumbled  on  heaps,  and  the  College  writings  scattered 
here  and  there."  He  suggested  that  Edward  Hawford 
should  be  appointed  to  the  vacancy ;  and  this  was  accord- 
ingly done  on  23rd  July,  1559.  Mr.  J.  Peile,  the  historian 
of  this  foundation,  says  of  him,  that  he  was  a  moderate 
Puritan;  that  he  knew  Elizabeth's  mind  as  to  vestments, 
etc. ;  and  that,  accordingly,  "  he  refused  to  get  rid  of  the 
vestments,  books,  etc.,  reintroduced  by  Bishop  Scot,  pro- 
bably thinking  it  unsatisfactory  to  sell  at  a  loss  what  he 
might  have  to  buy  again  at  a  great  price.  According  to 
Dering  2  he  conveyed  all  the  best  and  richest  to  some  place 
of  which  none  of  the  Fellows  knew.  But  in  1566  some 
'  books '  were  sold  '  by  consent  of  the  Fellows,'  possibly  on 
the  hint  given  by  the  sale  of  the  University  Cross.  ...  In 
1568  three  chalices  were  sold  .  .  .  also  certain  'chapel 
stuff.'  In  1570  there  was  received  fifteen  pounds  for  copes, 
vestments,  tunicles,  and  altar  oloths." 3 

Mr.  J.  Bass  Mullinger,  in  his  History  of  the  University  of 
Cambridge,  says :  "  The  other  Heads  preferred  to  await 
the  arrival  of  the  commissioners,  which  took  place  on  17th 
September,  and  was  soon  followed  by  further  important 
changes.  The  oath  of  Supremacy  was  tendered  to  all  the 
academic  authorities  and  functionaries,  and  its  refusal  was 
followed,  in  most  instances,  by  immediate  expulsion  from 


P.R.O.  Dom.  Eliz.,  IV,  No.  66,  27th  June,  1559. 
Cf.  Strype's  Parker,  ill,  p.  219,  App.,  No.  lxxviii. 
Coll.  Histories:  Christ's,  p.  71. 


THE  UNIVERSITIES  263 

office."  l  Dr.  George  Bullock  was  removed  from  the  Mas- 
tership of  St.  John's  ;  Grindal  replaced  Dr.  J.  Young  at 
Pembroke;  Dr.  Henry  Harvey,  just  then  engaged  on  the 
visitation  of  the  Northern  Province,  was  appointed  to 
Trinity  Hall  in  the  stead  of  Dr.  William  Mowse;  Thomas 
Redman,  the  Master  of  Jesus  College,  gave  place  to 
Edward  Gascoigne;  and  Dr.  Thomas  Bailey  was  expelled 
from  Clare  Hall ;  while  Roger  Kelk,  the  Puritan,  replaced 
Richard  Carr  at  Magdalene  College.  The  exact  cause  of 
vacancy  at  the  last  named  College  has  not  been  precisely 
ascertained;  but  there  can  exist  little  doubt,  under  the 
circumstances,  as  to  the  real  reason.  The  historian  of  the 
College,  Mr.  W.  A.  Gill,  says : 2  "  Carr  was  deprived  by 
Elizabeth,  or  resigned,  in  1 5  59,  when  the  oath  of  Supremacy 
was  imposed."  A  few  further  notes  may  here  be  appended 
concerning  some  of  the  persons  above  named.  Mr.  A.  Gray, 
in  his  History  of  Jesus  College,  says3  that  Redman,  "de- 
scribed in  1 561  as  an  unlearned  popish  recusant,  was 
deprived  in  the  early  months  of  1560."  The  change  that 
now  took  place,  not  only  in  Jesus  College,  to  which  the 
specific  reference  belongs,  must  have  been  similar  through- 
out the  University.  In  the  Jesus  account  books  we  learn 
that  whereas  in  the  year  1557-8  five  shillings  had  been 
expended  "  for  wine  and  singing-bread,"  this  item  fell,  with 
the  abolition  of  the  daily  Mass,  to  ten  pence  in  the  year 
1559-60.4  Of  Thomas  Bailey,  the  Master  of  Clare  Hall, 
and  of  his  expulsion,  Mr.  J.  R.  Wardale  thus  writes  in  his 
history  of  that  College:'5  "  Some  time  was,  however,  allowed 
the  holders  to  determine  whether  they  would  accept  the 
new  order  or  not;  and  accordingly  we  find  that  Bailey  did 
not  quit  the  Mastership  till  1560."  The  exact  date  of  his 
departure  is  not   known,  but  existing  documents  in  the 

1  P.  177.  And  yet,  with  this  statement  under  his  eyes,  to  which  in 
a  footnote  he  even  refers  his  readers,  Mr.  Gee  permits  himself  to  say 
in  The  Elizabethan  Clergy,  p.  133,  that  "though  no  special  details 
have  been  traced  of  ejected  Fellows,  it  is  probable  that  a  few  [italics 
mine]  were  dispossessed  by  the  Visitors." 

2  P.  55.  3  P.  64.  4  P.  63.  5  P.  50. 


264  THE  UNIVERSITIES 

College  archives  show  that  it  must  have  been  some  time 
between  the  middle  of  May  and  the  middle  of  October. 
Thomas  Heskyns,1  a  Fellow  of  this  College,  and  also 
Chancellor  of  Sarum,  refused  to  acknowledge  Elizabeth's 
Supremacy,  and  was  in  consequence  deprived  of  all  his 
preferments,  but  managed  to  retire  to  Flanders.  Mr.  Gee, 
in  his  Elizabethan  Clergy,  does  not  note  his  connection 
with  Cambridge  University.  This  is  unfortunate;  for  the 
case  of  Dr.  Philip  Baker,  the  Provost  of  King's  College, 
Cambridge,  makes  it  clear  that  deprivation  from  one  office 
did  not  necessarily  imply  deprivation  from  another;  one 
man  might,  therefore,  undergo  two  or  more  sentences 
distinct  and  separate  in  time.  Hence  there  might  even  be 
some  justification  for  counting  the  number  of  instances  of 
recorded  deprivations,  rather  than  only  the  number  of  per- 
sons deprived.  In  November,  1559,  Robert  Brassie,  the 
Provost  of  King's  College,  Cambridge,  died.  The  vacancy 
thus  created  was  immediately  filled  up  by  the  appointment 
of  Dr.  Philip  Baker.  How  the  appointment  ever  came  to 
be  made  under  the  circumstances  must  remain  a  mystery, 
for  he  was  never  anything  but  a  Papist.  It  is  evident, 
however,  that  some  laxity  existed,  either  in  tendering  the 
oath  to  newly-appointed  Heads,  or  it  may  have  been 
thought  politic,  in  the  dearth  of  suitable  men,  to  wink  at 
non-compliance  with  the  law  until  action  should  be  forced 
on  the  authorities  by  too  glaring  and  open  resistance  to  the 
new  order.  Be  this  as  it  may,  Baker  retained  his  post 
unmolested  till  1565,  when  a  visitation  was  made,  and 
eleven  of  the  Fellows  wrote  to  Cecil,  formulating  as 
charges  against  him  that  he  never  preached,  though  a 
Doctor  of  Divinity;  that  he  had  no  regard  to  Divinity  in 
others,  nor  had  he  caused  the  Fellows  to  study  it;  that  no 
Sacrament  was  administered,  but  once,  or  at  most  twice,  in 
the  whole  year.  The  conducts  and  singing  men  were  mani- 
festly Papists;  he  maintained  some  apparently  super- 
stitiously  minded,  and  his  ordinary  guests  were  the  most 
suspected  Papists  in  all  the  country,  as  Mr.  Bedill,  Mr. 
1  Cf.  Lansd.  MS.  980,  f.  280. 


THE  UNIVERSITIES  265 

Gardiner,  and  others  who  visited  him  weekly,  and  Mr. 
Webb  continually  till  he  went  to  Louvain,  and  secretly 
entertained  Dr.  Heskyns,  the  famous  Papist  already  re- 
ferred to;  that  he  encouraged  blasphemous  talk  at  his 
table  in  defence  of  pilgrimages,  and  had  hidden  vestments 
and  other  church  gear  '  against  another  day.' '  Mr.  Leigh, 
the  historian  of  the  College,  points  out 2  that  "  Baker  had 
already  been  deprived  of  the  living  of  St.  Andrew's,  in 
London,  for  refusing  to  renounce  the  Pope  and  his  doc- 
trine." It  is  instructive  that,  although  Mr.  Gee,  not  in  this 
instance  confining  himself  to  his  self-imposed  limits  of 
date,  classes  Dr.  Baker  as  a  deprived  Head  of  a  College, 
and  includes  him  amongst  the  deprived  incumbents  of  the 
dioceses  of  Ely  (Elsworth)  and  of  Hereford  (Pembridge), 
which  livings  he  lost  only  in  1570,  and  nevertheless  does 
not  mention  the  London  incumbency  of  St.  Andrew  by 
the  Wardrobe,  which  Dr.  Baker  vacated  in  1562,  on  account 
of  his  refusal  to  subscribe  to  a  confession  of  faith  which 
Bishop  Grindal  required  from  all  his  clergy.3  Attention  is 
here  directed  to  the  fact  that  on  this  occasion,  1565,  the 
Visitor  merely  "  admonished  the  Provost,  and  enjoined 
him  to  destroy  a  great  deal  of  popish  stuff,  as  Mass  books, 
couchers  and  grails,  copes,  vestments,  candlesticks,  crosses, 
pyxes,  paxes,  and  the  brazen  rood,  which  the  Provost  did 
not  perform,  but  kept  them  in  a  secret  corner,"  as  before; 
for,  as  he  shrewdly  remarked  on  another  occasion,  'that 
which  hath  been,  may  be  again ' ;  on  this  point  at  least, 
being  of  the  same  mind  as  Edward  Hawford,  the  Master 
of  Christ's  College.  Four  years  passed,  and  then  the  old 
complaints  were  renewed ;  for,  as  Mr.  Leigh  observes,  "  the 
fact  that  Baker  was  at  heart  a  Romanist  will  account  for 
most  of  his  shortcomings  ...  he  was  evidently  out  of 
harmony  with  the  new  order  of  things."  Grindal  wrote,4 
informing  Cecil  that  "  the  visitation  hath  continued  at  the 

1  Cf.  Lansd.  MS.  8,  No.  53.  2  P.  60. 

3  Diet.  Nat.  Biogr.,  iii,  p.  14 ;  cf.,  too,  Hennessey,  Nov.  Repert.  Eccl. 
Paroch.  Lond.,  p.  88,  and  g.  140,  p.  lxi. 

4  23rd  February,  1569-70;  cf.  Lansd.  MS.  12,  No.  33. 


266  THE  UNIVERSITIES 

K[ing's]  College  these  fifteen  days  last  past.  .  .  .  D.  Baker, 
the  Provost,  hath  not  appeared  either  in  person,  or  by 
proctor.  He  hath  put  away  his  man,  made  a  deed  of  gift 
of  his  goods,  and  is  gone  no  man  can  tell  whither.  Some 
think  he  is  fled  to  Louvain.  In  this  visitation  .  .  .  the  said 
Baker  is  said  to  have  defrauded  the  College  of  divers  good 
sums  of  money.  It  is  supposed  that  my  Lord  of  Ely  [Cox] 
pronounced  sentence  of  deprivation  against  the  said  Baker 
yesterday."  This  news  was  too  soon  after  the  event  to  be 
strictly  accurate.  He  was  formally  deprived,  as  stated,  on 
22nd  February,  and  about  that  date,  as  above  related,  lost 
all  his  other  preferments ;  but,  as  admitted  by  Fuller,  when 
he  fled,  far  from  defrauding  the  College,  he  gave  a  proof 
of  his  integrity  by  resigning  the  College  money  and  plate 
which  was  in  his  custody,  and  even  sending  back  the 
College  horses  which  had  carried  him  to  the  sea  side.1 

Another  notable  instance  of  connivance  on  the  part  of 
the  authorities,  or  unwillingness  to  see  and  drive  things  to 
extremities,  is  furnished  by  the  case  of  the  famous  Dr. 
Caius,  the  virtual  founder  of  Gonville  and  Caius  College. 
Dr.  Bacon,  the  master  of  Gonville  Hall,  died  on  ist  January, 
1558-9.  Dr.  Caius,  a  physician  practising  his  profession  in 
London,  was  elected  to  succeed  to  the  vacancy  on  the  24th 
of  the  same  month.  Mr.  J.  Venn,  the  modern  historian  of 
the  college,  says  of  him :  ■  "  He  was  a  fervent  admirer  of 
the  past,  and  had  little  sympathy  for  new  views  whether 
religious,  political,  or  educational.  There  is  reason  to  be- 
lieve that  he  never  ceased  to  be  at  heart  a  decided  Roman 
Catholic.  On  the  other  hand,  the  Fellows  were  mostly  of 
the  new  way  of  thinking,  not  only  Puritans,  but  apparently 
narrow-minded  and  bitter  in  spirit."  This  incompatibility 
inevitably  led  to  dissension;  and  during  the  next  seven 
years,  "  when  his  subordinates  were  troublesome,  he  just 
expelled  them  one  after  another,  dealing  thus  with  twenty." 
The  Chancellor,  when  complained  to  by  these  aggrieved 
Fellows  and  their  sympathisers,  upheld  the  expulsions,  but 

1  Leigh,  Hist,  of  King's  Coll.,  pp.  60-2;  Did.  Nat.  Biogr.,  iii,  p.  14. 

2  P-  55- 


THE  UNIVERSITIES  267 

urged  caution  on  Dr.  Caius.1  In  the  library  of  Lambeth 
Palace  is  a  manuscript  catalogue  of  complaints  against  him, 
amongst  others,  that  "  he  maintaineth  within  his  College 
copes,  vestments,  albs,  crosses,  tapers  .  .  .  with  all  Massing 
abominations,  and  termeth  them  the  College  treasure.  He 
hath  erected  and  set  up  of  late  a  crucifix  and  other  idols 
with  the  image  of  a  doctor  kneeling  before  them ; " — with 
much  more  to  the  same  effect.  At  last,  in  December,  1572, 
the  strain  of  the  situation  reached  snapping  point,  and  the 
Vice-Chancellor  of  the  University  presided  in  person  over 
the  "  pillage  of  his  rooms,  and  the  destruction  of  a  number 
of  church  ornaments  which  he  had  retained  there."  2  The 
account  of  this  outrage  has  come  down  to  us  from  the  pen 
of  Dr.  Byng  himself,  the  Vice-Chancellor.  "  I  am  further 
to  give  your  honour  advertisement,"  he  wrote  to  Lord 
Burghley,  "  of  a  great  oversight  of  Dr.  Caius,  who  hath  so 
long  kept  superstitious  monuments  in  his  College,  that  the 
evil  fame  thereof  caused  my  Lord  of  London  to  write  very 
earnestly  to  me  to  see  them  abolished.  I  could  hardly 
have  been  persuaded  that  such  things  by  him  had  been 
reserved.  But  causing  his  own  company  to  make  search 
in  that  College,  I  received  an  inventory  of  much  popish 
trumpery;  as  vestments,  albs,  tunicles,  stoles,  manicles, 
corporas  cloths,  with  the  pyx  and  sindon  and  canopy; 
beside  holy  water  stoups  with  sprinkles,  pax,  censers,  super- 
altars,  tables  of  idols,  Mass  books,  portuisses  and  grails, 
with  other  such  stuff  as  might  have  furnished  divers  Masses 
at  one  instant.  It  was  thought  good  by  the  whole  consent 
of  the  Heads  of  houses,  to  burn  the  books  and  such  other 
things  as  served  most  for  idolatrous  abuses,  and  to  cause 
the  rest  to  be  defaced ;  which  was  accomplished  yesterday 
with  the  willing  hearts,  as  appeared,  of  the  whole  company 
of  that  house."3  Dr.  Caius  left  the  College  soon  after  this 
event;  and  in  May  or  June,  1573,  he  resigned  the  Master- 
ship.   He  did  not  long  survive  this  severance,  for  he  died 

1  Cf.  P.R.O.  Dom.  Eliz.,  XXXIX,  Nos.  4,  5,  7,  1565-6. 

2  Venn,  Coll.  Hist.  Series:  Hist,  of  Caius  Coll.,  p.  65. 

3  Lansd.  MS.  15,  No.  64,  14th  December,  1572. 


268  THE  UNIVERSITIES 

on  29th  July,  1573.  That  this  large  accumulation  of 
"  popish  trumpery "  was  not  merely  the  result  of  anti- 
quarian acquisitiveness,  but  evinced  a  clinging  to  the  old 
ways,  is  made  clear  by  his  having  opened  the  doors  of  his 
College  as  a  refuge  for  adherents  of  Rome.  Thus  Mr.  Venn 
points  out  that,  amongst  the  residents  there,  was  Dr.  Cosyn, 
who  had  been  Master  of  St.  Catherine's  during  Mary's 
reign  and  had  retired  to  Gonville  "  after  his  expulsion  or 
retirement."  William  King,  formerly  Archdeacon  of  North- 
umberland, who  "  must  now  also  have  been  in  retirement," 
was  also  living  there.  Another  was  Henry  Stiles,  who  had 
been  a  monk  at  Westminster  during  the  recent  revival  of 
that  ancient  abbey  under  Feckenham.1  Others  were  Wil- 
liam Whinke,  formerly  Vice-Provost  of  King's,  deprived  of 
that  post  on  account  of  his  opinions,  at  the  accession  of 
Queen  Elizabeth ;  Richard  Hall,  who  later  fled  to  the  Con- 
tinent, became  a  Canon  of  Cambrai,  and  died  at  Douay. 

Dr.  Caius  was  succeeded  in  the  Mastership  of  his  College 
by  Dr.  Legge,  who,  though  nominally  accepting  the  Eliza- 
bethan settlement  of  religion,  did  not  escape  the  charge  of 
betraying  popish  tendencies.  Indeed,  the  accusation  may 
be  considered  to  rest  on  fair  grounds,  if  a  judgment  may 
be  formed  from  the  subsequent  careers  of  some  of  the 
students  who  entered  the  College  during  the  first  twelve  or 
fifteen  years  of  his  tenure  of  office.  Mr.  Venn  thinks  "  it  is 
worth  calling  attention  to  the  degree  and  kind  of  accession 
to  the  Romish  cause  supplied  by  one  College,  and  that  not 
a  large  one,  during  a  few  years  of  Elizabeth's  reign."  2  The 
list  he  furnishes  may  here  be  summarised.  It  comprises 
John  Fingley,  afterwards  a  priest,  executed  in  1586;  Wil- 
liam Deane,  a  priest,  executed  in  1588;  John  Weldon,  a 
priest,  first  exiled,  afterwards  executed;  Francis  Mounde- 
ford,  ordained  in  Rome,  executed  for  his  priesthood  in 
1592;3  John  Ballard,  a  priest,  executed  for  his  share  in 
Babington's  conspiracy.    The  following  students  entered 

'  Cf.  Gasquet,  Henry  VIII  and  the  English  Monasteries,  ii, 
pp.  475-6,  and  note. 

2  Hist.  0/ Cains  Coll.,  p.  82.  3  Cf.  Dodd,  ii,  p.  120. 


THE  UNIVERSITIES  269 

the  Society  of  Jesus:  Richard  Holtby,  William  Flack, 
Reginald  Eaton,  Christopher  Walpole,  Henry  Coppinger, 
Robert  Markham,  and  Charles  Yelverton.  Robert  Sayer, 
first  a  seminary  priest,  afterwards  became  a  Benedictine 
monk  at  Monte  Cassino.  Others  to  become  priests  were 
Henry  Rookwood,  John  Roberts,  Edward  Osburne  (re- 
ferred to  in  a  complaint  of  the  Fellows  as  one  "  who,  being 
convicted  of  Papistry,  the  Master  did  not  expulse  him  "), 
Edward  Dakyns,  and  Richard  Cornwallis.  Mr.  Venn 
further  points  out '  that  "  besides  the  above  priests, 
there  were  over  twenty  members  of  the  College  who  suf- 
fered subsequently  for  their  opinions,  either  by  imprison- 
ment, by  fine  as  recusants,  or  in  some  other  way.  Many 
of  these  belonged  to  important  Yorkshire  families,  etc. 
Thus  we  find  amongst  the  subsequent  recusants  St.  Ouen- 
tin,  Wentworth,  Stapleton,  Cresswell,  Aske;  and  from 
other  counties,  Drury,  Rookwood,  Huddleston." 

The  records  of  the  other  Colleges  do  not  furnish  us  with 
such  detailed  particulars  about  their  respective  students. 
Nevertheless,  contemporary  indications  exist,  to  show  that 
all  was  not  smooth  sailing  for  the  adherents  of  the  Reforma- 
tion. Sander  reported  to  Cardinal  Moroni  on  the  subject 
of  Cambridge  University  as  early  as  1561,  showing  that 
"  there  withdrew  from  the  single  College  of  Trinity  sixteen 
priests,  some  of  whom  went  over  the  sea;  others  went  to 
their  friends,  and  many  other  learned  men  withdrew  from 
other  Colleges.  Lastly,  there  was  manifested  so  much 
constancy  of  every  kind  in  the  students,  that  bribes  and 
flattery  were  needful  to  gain  them.  Even  the  laws  were 
dispensed  in  their  favour,  so  that  while  for  others  the 
ecclesiastical  offices  are  said  in  the  vulgar  tongue,  they  are 
allowed  to  retain  the  Latin."  2  But  while  it  may  be  allowed 
that  possibly  no  other  College  was  so  infected  with  Popery 
as  was  Caius  and  Gonville,  nevertheless  it  may  be  assumed 
as  certain  that  each  foundation  held  some  proportion,  how- 
ever small,  of  adherents  of  the  old  order,  who  entered  the 

1  P.  84. 

2  Cath.  Record  Soc.  Publ.  i,  p.  44.  Sander's  Report  to  Card.  Moroni. 


270  THE  UNIVERSITIES 

University  and  escaped  the  tests  of  the  oaths  either  by  the 
connivance  of  some  of  the  authorities  or  by  recourse  to 
some  form  of  sharp  practice  on  their  own  account.  Certain 
it  is  that  Cecil  was  so  advised;  for  at  the  time  of  the 
Northern  Rising,  amongst  the  notes  he  made  "  of  measures 
to  be  taken  on  the  emergency  of  the  Rebellion,"  dated 
ist  December,  1569,  occurs  the  following:  "That  in  Cam- 
bridge and  Oxford  order  be  given  to  stay  all  young  men 
being  the  sons  or  kinsfolk  of  any  of  the  rebels  in  the  North, 
or  of  any  suspected  persons  for  religion."  '  These  and  the 
like  repressive  measures  seemed  to  have  their  effect ;  for  in 
1 577,  Richard  Howland,  then  Vice-Chancellor,  received  an 
order  from  the  Privy  Council,  bearing  date  15th  November, 
enjoining  him  forthwith  to  certify  to  them  the  "  names, 
degrees  and  qualities,  with  the  value  of  the  lands  and 
goods  of  such  as  remaining  within  the  University  and 
town  of  Cambridge  do  refuse  to  come  to  the  church."  In 
his  answer,  dated  22nd  November,  the  Vice-Chancellor  was 
able  to  certify,  after  careful  enquiry,  that  he  could  learn  of 
no  one  "at  this  time  remaining,  whom  we  can  charge, 
either  openly  to  impugn  the  truth,  or  that  doth  wilfully 
refuse  to  come  to  church  or  to  communicate  according 
unto  her  Majesty's  laws." 2  The  real  value  of  this  attesta- 
tion, however,  may  be  gauged  not  only  by  the  information 
already  furnished  in  connection  with  Caius  College  under 
the  mastership  of  Dr.  Legge,  but  also  by  a  letter  addressed 
to  Lord  Burghley  as  late  as  4th  February,  1 591-2  by  some 
Heads  of  Cambridge  University,  asking  for  instructions 
"  how  far  they  were  to  go,  and  with  what  sort  of  Papists 
to  deal;  whether  also  with  close  Papists  so  noted,  and 
vehemently  suspected  and  such  as  had  by  their  malicious 
and  bold  speeches  and  otherwise  bewrayed  themselves  .  .  . 
and  .  .  .  that  it  were  very  necessary  that  the  other  kind  of 
Papists  that  come  to  church  (though  notwithstanding,  little 
better  than  the  seminaries),  were  looked  unto  and  found 
out,  specially  in  the  University,  where  they  have  done  and 
still  do  much  harm  in  corrupting  of  youth  .  .  .  that  such 
1  P.R.O.  Dom.  Eliz.,  lx,  No.  4.  2  Ibid.,  cxvm,  No.  35. 


THE  UNIVERSITIES  271 

dangerous  members  of  this  body  .  .  .  may  ...  be  dealt 
with  .  .  .  whereby  just  knowledge  may  come  to  your  honour 
of  this  kind  of  Papists  also,  who  they  are  that  lurk  in  Col- 
leges amongst  us,  more  in  number,  and  more  dangerous 
than  commonly  is  thought;  and  less  to  be  tolerated  in  the 
Universities  (in  our  opinion)  than  in  any  part  of  the  land."  l 

Mr.  Gee  is  one  of  a  school  who  accept  the  conclusions 
he  has  published  in  his  volume  on  The  Elizabethan  Clergy, 
1558-64.  Rigorously  confining  himself  to  the  narrow 
limits  of  date  he  had  selected,  namely,  the  first  six  years 
only  of  Elizabeth's  reign,  he  has  satisfied  himself  that  the 
number  of  clergy  deprived  really  falls  within  the  two  hun- 
dred first  fixed  on  by  Camden.  Under  such  circumstances 
his  estimate  about  the  University  of  Oxford  is  of  interest. 
The  facts  here  to  be  adduced,  however,  will  hardly  be 
found  to  corroborate  the  results  of  his  investigations.  He 
points  out  that  "when  Elizabeth  came  to  the  throne,  Oxford 
theology  was  thoroughly  in  sympathy  with  the  Marian 
reaction.  ...  To  press  the  oath  of  Supremacy  very  rigor- 
ously would  have  meant  to  turn  out  practically  all  the 
Heads  of  Colleges  and  the  majority  of  the  Fellows. 
Accordingly  it  was  determined,  as  we  gather  from  the 
result,  to  proceed  gently,  ...  or  as  Wood  puts  it,  '  to  make 
a  mild  and  gentle,  not  rigorous,  reformation.' "  2  Mr.  Gee, 
notwithstanding  these  admissions,  then  proceeds  to  dis- 
count the  results  tabulated  by  Canon  Tierney,  and  even 
those  of  Anthony  a  Wood ;  rejects  Coveney,  the  Master  of 
Magdalen,  from  the  lists,  asserting  that  he  was  deprived, 
not  for  refusing  the  oath  of  Supremacy,  but  for  not  being 
in  Orders;  and,  generally,  records  his  conviction  that  he 
does  "  not  think  it  possible  to  prove  that  many  were  turned 
out  in  1559,"  while  admitting  that  those  who  conformed 
did  so  unwillingly,  in  this  relying  on  Wood  who  says: 
"Many  conformed  for  a  certain  time  till  they  saw  how 
matters  would  be  determined." 3  This,  it  is  submitted, 
is  hardly  a  fair  way  to  deal  with  the  question.  Many 
considerations,  over  and  above  the  bare  fact  of  subscrib- 

1  Lansd.  MS.  66,  No.  46.  2  Pp.  130-1.  3  Ibid.,  p.  132. 


272  THE  UNIVERSITIES 

ing  or  refusing  the  oath,  have  to  be  taken  into  account. 
The  limit  (1558-64)  so  arbitrarily  fixed  by  Mr.  Gee,  is 
wholly  inadequate;  for,  granting  that  the  Visitors  pro- 
ceeded warily  at  first,  it  could  only  be  after  pressure  had 
begun  to  be  applied,  that  the  real  state  of  feeling  would 
manifest  itself;  and  even  according  to  Mr.  Gee's  admis- 
sion, that  pressure  was  not  brought  to  bear  on  Oxford 
till  1565,  a  date  beyond  the  period  he  has  allowed  himself 
to  investigate.  Yet  the  doings  of  1559,  1561,  and  1565 
are  closely  connected,  and  must  necessarily,  therefore,  be 
studied  together. 

At  the  same  time  that  the  writ  was  issued  to  the  com- 
missioners appointed  for  the  visitation  of  Cambridge  Uni- 
versity, a  similar  document  was  directed  to  those  selected 
for  the  like  purpose  at  Oxford.  This  writ  is  not  known  to 
be  extant ;  but  doubtless  its  terms  were  similar  to,  if  not 
identical  with,  that  prepared  for  the  sister  University.  The 
names  of  the  Visitors  are  preserved  in  more  than  one 
document.  The  commissioners  were  Sir  Thomas  Parry, 
Treasurer  of  the  Household;  Sir  John  Mason,  Sir  Thomas 
Smythe,  Sir  Thomas  Benger,  Richard  Gooderick,  "  D. 
Joannes,  Mr.  Medicus "  [i.e.,  Mr.  Dr.  Master],  Alexander 
Nowell,  and  David  Whithede.1  Wood  names  Cox  as  an 
alternative  to  Nowell.  Evidence  goes  to  show  that,  from 
the  reformers'  point  of  view,  their  presence  was  much 
needed ;  it  is  undeniable,  too,  that  they  did  not  make  any 
great  clearance  of  the  disaffected  towards  reform,  for  a 
letter  exists  written  by  one  Prat,  a  clergyman,  to  his  friend, 
Mr.  John  Fox,  at  Norwich,  wherein  he  gives  an  account  of 
a  sermon,  described  as  'excellent,'  preached  at  Paul's  Cross 
in  January,  1 560-1,  by  Mr.  James  Calfhill,  Sub-Dean  of 
Christ  Church  in  Oxford,"  lamenting  the  misery  of  Oxford 
that  it  was  yet  under  the  papistical  yoke."  2  The  truth  of 
this  can  best  be  shown  by  a  rapid  survey  of  the  conditions 
prevailing  at  the  various  Colleges  during  these  and  the  next 
few  years.    Part  of  the  work  entrusted  to  the  commissioners 

1  P.R.O.  Dom.  Eliz.,  IV,  No.  34 ;  Lambeth  MS.  959,  f.  424. 

2  Lansd.  MS.  981,  f.  90;  cf.  also  Harl.  MS.  39,  B.  1. 


THE  UNIVERSITIES  273 

was  to  restore  to  their  former  position  those  who  had  been 
"unjustly"  ejected  during  the  late  reign.  This  way  of  pre- 
senting the  matter  at  issue  is,  of  course,  a  begging  of  the 
whole  question.  But  it  enables  the  supporters  of  that  view 
to  rule  out  such  "  restorations "  as  not  implying  the 
"  deprivation  "  of  the  then  holders.  This  subject  of  con- 
troversy will  recur  at  a  later  stage  of  the  present  enquiry, 
and  may,  therefore,  for  the  present  be  passed  by  without 
farther  comment. 

The  Rev.  H.  A.  Wilson,  the  historian  of  Magdalen  Col- 
lege,1 says  that:  "In  the  year  ending  July,  1560,  seven 
Fellowships  became  vacant.  Three  of  the  outgoing  Fellows 
were  apparently  '  recusants,'  but  one  of  them  (Alan  Cope, 
who  afterwards  became  a  canon  of  St.  Peter's,  Rome),  was 
still  Fellow  in  1560,  and  was  therefore  probably  not  dis- 
placed by  the  commissioners.  The  three  were  imprisoned 
for  a  time  in  1560.  ...  A  fourth  had  leave  of  absence 
protnotionis  causa,  with  a  condition  which  suggests  that  he 
was  not  inclined  to  accept  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer. 
In  the  year  ending  July,  1561,  the  number  of  outgoing 
Fellows  was  larger,  and  included  several  of  the  probationers 
admitted  in  1559."  Under  the  circumstances  it  would 
seem  natural  to  conclude  that  disaffection  towards  the 
religious  changes,  and  unwillingness  to  conform  to  them, 
brought  about  these  departures.  But  the  writer  states  that, 
in  his  opinion,  "  there  is  nothing  to  show  that  anyone 
retired  by  compulsion  in  either  year."  The  point,  however, 
would  seem  to  be,  not  that  compulsion  had  had  to  be 
exercised,  but  that  conscience  drove  out  many  who  other- 
wise would  have  taken  degrees  or  retained  Fellowships,  and, 
generally,  would  have  contributed  to  the  prosperity  of  the 
University.  And  this  view  is  practically  admitted  in  the 
following  passage  on  the  same  page:  "The  influence  of  the 
Commission  may  perhaps  have  hastened  the  removal  of 
the  altars  and  images  from  the  chapel,  .  .  .  and  it  is  not 
unlikely  that  these  and  other  proceedings  following  on  the 
Acts  of  Supremacy  and  Uniformity  led  to  the  withdrawal 
1  College  Histories  Series:  Magdalen  College,  p.  114,  note. 
T 


274  THE  UNIVERSITIES 

of  several  members  of  the  College  in  1559  and  1560." 
Bearing  in  mind  Mr.  Gee's  interpretation  of  the  removal  of 
the  Master,  Dr.  Coveney,  as  being  due  not  to  recusancy,  but 
to  his  not  being  in  Orders,  it  may  be  of  interest  to  learn  the 
reasons  as  set  forth  by  so  competent  an  authority  as  the 
Visitor  himself.  Robert  Home,  Bishop  of  Winchester, 
writing  to  Cecil  on  26th  September,  1561,  informed  him 
that  he  had  found  Magdalen  College  "thoroughly  in  those 
matters  conformable  .  .  .  also  many  toward  in  learning 
and  therewith  in  religion  forward,  for  whose  cause  and  for 
very  many  and  notable  enormities  objected  to  D.  Coveney, 
their  President,  being  also  thought  an  enemy  to  the  sincere 
religion  of  Christ,  and  therewith  an  evil  husband  for  the  Col- 
lege, whereof  much  matter  appeareth  by  his  own  confession, 
upon  his  examination,  I  have  with  good  deliberation  and 
just  ground  deprived  him  of  his  said  office."  ' 

Bishop  Home's  letter,  just  quoted,  did  not  deal  exclu- 
sively with  the  case  of  Magdalen  College,  for  at  the  same 
time  he  had  likewise  visited  New,  Corpus,  and  Trinity 
Colleges.  He  says  that  he  only  tried  to  enforce  the 
Supremacy  oath,  the  Order  of  the  Book  of  Common 
Prayer,  and  the  Queen  Majesty's  Injunctions,  explaining 
his  moderation  by  admitting  that  at  first  he  found  three  of 
the  Colleges  "  wholly  bent,  and  did  in  effect  refuse  to 
acknowledge  them  [i.e.,  the  points  proposed  for  their  accept- 
ance] with  the  subscription  of  their  hands,  in  such  wise  as 
if  I  had  as  I  might  peremptorily  have  proceeded,  I  should 
not  scarcely  have  left  twain  in  some  one  house,  and  finally 
with  such  toleration  as  I  used  in  respecting  them  some 
time  to  be  advised,  had  very  few  did  it,  and  yet  not  with- 
out some  protestation."  As  regards  Corpus  Christi  College, 
he  says  that  although  he  found  the  President  [William 
Bocher  or  Butcher]  "  unfit,"  2  "  yet  because  I  could  not  by 
the  statutes  there  so  well  proceed  against  him,  as  I  did 
against  the  other  {i.e.,  Dr.  Coveney],  by  reason  the  company 

1  P.R.O.  Dom.  Eliz.,  xix,  No.  56. 

2  Anthony  a  Wood  explains  this  term  by  calling  him  Kin  am'mo 
Catholicus";  cf.  Fasti,  i.  p.  717. 


THE  UNIVERSITIES  275 

would  not  object  against  him,  I  have  therefore  thought 
good  to  travail  with  him  voluntarily  to  resign  his  place, 
which  finally  he  hath  done  into  mine  hands,  so  as  the 
matter  nowresteth  upon  my  acceptation."  William  Butcher 
had  but  lately  come  into  office,  succeeding  Dr.  William 
Chedsey,  who,  elected  President  as  recently  as  8th  Sep- 
tember, 1558,  was  ousted  by  the  royal  commissioners  in 
the  autumn  of  1559,  certainly  before  15th  December,  the 
date  of  Dr.  Butcher's  admission.  The  Rev.  T.  Fowler,  the 
historian  of  Corpus  Christi  College,1  admits  that  "the 
ground  of  [Chedsey's]  ejection  must  have  been  the  refusal 
to  take  the  oath  of  Supremacy."  Corpus  Christi  College 
was  not  purged  of  Popery  for  a  considerable  period. 
Home's  Register  contains  detailed  particulars  of  a  subse- 
quent visitation  held  by  his  commissary,  Dr.  George 
Ackworth,  in  1 566,  when  charges  were  brought  against 
Jerome  Reynolds,  one  of  the  Fellows,  George  Atkinson,  a 
chaplain,  and  Richard  Joyner,  clerk  of  accompts,  of  con- 
cealing church  plate  and  vestments  in  the  first  year  of 
Elizabeth's  reign,  to  save  them  from  destruction,  and  of 
having  forged  an  Indenture  to  enable  a  certain  Thomas 
Windsor  to  claim  them,  the  further  to  secure  their  safety, 
thus  preserving  them  "  for  future  use  should  there  be  a 
turn  of  affairs  and  a  favourable  opportunity  present  itself."  ~ 
It  is  also  well  to  note  that  in  1568  there  was  further  trouble 
over  the  presidency  of  the  college,  the  incidents  of  which 
attest  "the  strength  and  numbers  of  the  Roman  Catholic 
party  still  holding  its  ground  in  Corpus."3  The  author 
quotes  Anthony  a  Wood  thus:  "But  when  the  prefixed 
time  for  election  came,  the  Fellows  who  were  most  inclined 
to  the  Roman  Catholic  persuasion  made  choice  of  one 
Robert  Harrison,  M.A.,  not  long  since  removed  from  the 
College  for  his  (as  'twas  pretended)  religion."  This  at 
least  shows  that  for  the  moment  the  Catholic  party  was  in 
a  majority;  but  means  were  speedily  taken  to  have  this 
election  quashed.    Strype  is  more  explicit  as  to  what  hap- 

1  Coll.  Hist.  Series,  p.  68.  -  Ibid.,  p.  70. 

'  Ibid.,  p.  73. 


276  THE  UNIVERSITIES 

pened  at  Corpus.  He  says  that  Bishop  Home  had  to 
make  a  special  visitation,  in  the  course  of  which  he 
"  placed  the  said  Cole  (a  learned  and  good  man,  once  an 
exile,  appointed  by  the  Queen,  but  rejected  by  the  members 
of  the  College)  by  force  in  the  said  Presidentship,  breaking 
open  the  gates  of  the  house  which  they  had  shut  against 
him.  And  when  the  said  Bishop  had  made  some  progress 
in  visiting  the  house,  in  order  to  the  purging  it  of  some  of 
the  worst  affected  Fellows,  they  were  so  refractory  and 
abusive,  that  the  visiting  Bishop  sent  a  letter  to  Parker, 
Archbishop  of  Canterbury,  showing  that  it  was  his  judg- 
ment that  the  irregularities  of  this  College,  as  likewise  of 
New  College  and  Winchester,  would  be  better  remedied  by 
the  Ecclesiastical  Commission  than  his  private  visitation, 
the  Archbishop  signified  this  to  the  Bishop  of  London,  and 
withal  sent  him  Winchester's  letter.  He,  considering  the 
stubbornness  of  these  University  men,  approved  of  the 
counsel  of  bringing  them  before  the  Commission,  per- 
ceiving well  what  seminaries  of  irreligion  and  disobedience 
they  might  prove;  and  sending  the  letter  back  again,  he 
wrote  his  mind  at  the  bottom  briefly  in  these  words:  '  My 
Lords,  I  like  this  letter  very  well,  and  think  as  the  writer, 
if  by  some  extraordinary  ready  [means]  that  house  and 
school  be  not  purged,  those  godly  foundations  shall  be  but 
a  nursery  of  adder's  brood,  to  poison  the  Church  of  Christ. — 
Edm.,  London.' " ' 

Bishop  Home  added  to  this  letter  already  quoted  from  2 
a  postscript  in  which  he  referred  to  the  visitation  he  had 
just  made  at  New  College.  He  wrote:  "  It  may  evidently 
appear  the  cause  why  they  of  the  New  College  have  refused 
to  subscribe  (although  they  pretend  lack  of  my  authority 
to  exact  it),  upon  the  examination  of  two  of  the  young 
scholars,  having  refused  to  come  to  the  service  in  the  church, 
who  have  said  plainly,  because  by  their  statutes  they  are 
bound  to  have  Mass,  and  are  generally  prohibit  by  the 
same  to  admit  and  receive  nothing  contrary  or  diverse; 
that  therefore  they  ought  not  to  allow  any  other  service. 

1  Life  ofGrindal,  pp.  196-7.       a  P.R.O.  Dom.  Eliz.,  xix,  No.  56. 


THE  UNIVERSITIES  277 

And  so  in  the  rest  is  their  meaning  to  be  gathered,  that 
albeit  they  do  indeed  come  to  the  service,  yet  being  against 
their  oath  and  the  observation  of  their  statutes,  they  will 
not  affirm  it  with  the  subscription  of  their  hands.  .  .  . 
Those  young  scholars  standing  obstinately  herein  I  have 
committed  to  be  punished  in  prison  by  the  Vice-Chancellor."1 
This  incident  serves  to  indicate  the  general  temper  of 
the  College;  and,  indeed,  its  history  for  the  next  few  years 
is  largely  taken  up  with  instances  of  opposition  to  the 
Queen's  Majesty's  proceedings  in  matters  of  religion ;  in  so 
much  that  the  Rev.  Dr.  Rashdall,  its  recent  historian,  re- 
marks : "  "  that  such  a  nest  of  crypto-Papists  should  have 
been  allowed  to  remain  undisturbed  for  so  many  years  is 
a  curious  instance  of  the  precarious  and  transitional  posi- 
tion of  Church  affairs  in  these  years,"  explaining,  and  ex- 
plained by,  the  fears  expressed  in  Bishop  Home's  letter 
above  cited.  Strype,  writing  of  the  incidents  of  1568,  says 
that  "  complaints  came  up  this  year  concerning  the  preval- 
ency  of  Popery  in  Oxford;  and  particularly  in  Corpus  Christi, 
and  the  New  College,  and  that  of  Winchester  appertaining 
to  it.  Wherein  were  strong  parties  of  such  as  inclined  that 
way." 3  Certainly  New  College  has  no  reason  to  be  ashamed 
of  such  alumni  as  John  and  Nicholas  Harpsfield,  Thomas 
Harding,  Nicholas  Sander, Thomas  Dorman, Robert  Poyntz, 
Thomas  Hyde,  and  John  Marshall  (the  Head  and  second 
Masters  respectivelyof  Winchester  School),  Thomas  Staple- 
ton  (whom  Wood  calls  "the  most  learned  Roman  Catholic  of 
all  his  time  " 4),  John  Rastall,  Richard  White  (elected  Fellow 
in  1557,  but  deprived  for  absence  in  1564,  later  well  known 
as  a  professor  of  law  at  Douay),  John  Munden  (elected  a 
Fellow  in  1562,  but  expelled  in  1566,  and  becoming  a  priest 
abroad,  was  in  the  end  hanged  for  his  religion  at  Tyburn 
in  1582,5)  and  John  Pits  (or  Pitseus),  who  became  a  proba- 

1  Froude  partly  quotes  this  letter  in  his  History  of  England  (vii, 
p.  468);  but  with  characteristic  inaccuracy  ascribes  it  to  Bishop  Jewel. 
-  Coll.  Hist.  Series,  Hist.  0/ New  College,  p.  114. 
3  Life  of  Grinded,  p.  196.  4  Diet.  Nat.  Biogr.,  lxi,  p.  70. 

5  Gillow,  Diet,  of  Cat h.  Biogr.,  v,  p.  142. 


278  THE  UNIVERSITIES 

tioner  in  1578,  but  in  1580,  before  becoming  a  full  Fellow, 
fled  for  conscience'  sake  to  the  Continent,  was  well  known 
as  an  author,  and  died  in  16 16,  having  attained  the  dignity 
of  Dean  of  Liverdun.1  Dr.  Rashdall  enumerates  ~  fifteen 
Fellows,  etc.,  who  left  the  College  of  their  own  accord,  or 
who  were  ejected  after  Elizabeth's  accession ;  but,  not- 
withstanding this  numerous  secession,  he  states  that  "  the 
purge  thus  effected  was  very  inadequate.  It  was  only  the 
most  conscientious  men  who  disappeared ;  the  majority  of 
those  who  remained  were  very  reluctant  conformists."  His 
list  comprises  Richard  White  and  Robert  Poyntz,  both 
already  referred  to,  as  also  William  Knott,  John  Gatacre, 
Thomas  Butler,  John  Hardy,  John  Noble,  Thomas  Daryll, 
Edward  Astlow,  the  famous  physician,  John  Fowler,''  the 
two  brothers,  Robert  and  John  Fenne,4  Owen  Lewis,  after- 
wards to  become  Bishop  of  Cassano,  John  Hunnyngton, 
and  William  Pomerell.5  It  is  also  interesting  to  note  that 
the  Fennes  had  a  brother,  James,  who  was  originally  a 
chorister  at  New  College,  but  went  to  Corpus,  whence  he 
was  ejected  for  refusing  the  oath  of  Supremacy,  without 
taking  his  degree.  He  subsequently  suffered  death,  in 
February  1582-3,  at  Tyburn,  for  his  priesthood.6 

Contemporary  evidence  having  always  a  special  value, 
it  may  be  well  to  quote  here  what  Nicholas  Sander  reported 
about  Oxford  University  to  Cardinal  Moroni,  as  early  as 
1561.  Writing  about  "what  the  University  of  Oxford  has 
suffered  for  the  Faith,"  he  said:  "  On  the  Visitors  going  to 
the  Colleges  severally,  they  did  not  obtain  oath  or  subscrip- 
tion from  one  in  twenty.  I  will  relate  what  happened  in 
one  College  which  is  very  well  known  to  me,  because  I 
belonged  to  it,  and  hence  what  happened  in  others  may  be 
conjectured.  I  speak  of  the  College  of  the  Blessed  Virgin, 
commonly  called  '  New.'    From  this,  first  of  all,  there  de- 

1  Diet.  Nat.  Biogr.,  xlv,  p.  339;  Coll.  Hist.  Series:  Hist.  0/  New 
College,  pp.  1 1 1-2. 

2  P.  114.  3  Cf.  Wood,  Athenae,  i,  p.  152. 
*  Cf.  Athenae,  i,  pp.  240,  320,  321.      5  Cf.  Wood,  Fasti,  i,  p.  324. 

6  Cf.  Athenae,  i,  p.  321. 


THE  UNIVERSITIES  279 

parted  ten  priests,  who  were  chaplains ;  then  the  six  senior 
Fellows  professed  the  Faith  with  such  freedom  that  they 
were  placed  in  custody — Bromborough,  Rastall,  Fox, 
Giblett,  Dirrham,  and  Davis,  all  learned  and  very  good 
men.  The  Visitors  were  unwilling  to  call  more,  because 
they  heard  that  they  would  find  the  same  constancy  in  fifty 
others.  So,  having  recourse  to  flattery,  they  begged  them 
merely  to  go  to  church,  doing  which  they  should  be  free 
from  the  oath,  subscription,  and  all  penalties.  Fourteen 
have  crossed  the  sea  from  this  College,  and  many  others 
besides  have  left  who  were  unable  or  unwilling  to  cross  the 
sea.  Lastly,  out  of  a  hundred  persons  who  belonged  to  the 
choir,  never  yet  have  even  ten  been  induced  to  receive  the 
schismatical  Communion  at  Easter."1 

The  visitation  of  New  College,  conducted  by  Dr.  George 
Ackworth  in  Bishop  Home's  name  in  1 566,2  must  here  be 
referred  to  as  a  useful  instance  that  1564  is  an  unduly  early 
limit  to  set  to  Romanising  tendencies,  as  Mr.  Gee  would 
have  the  readers  of  his  book  infer.  Charges  of  Popery,  re- 
criminations about  the  possession  and  circulation  of  popish 
controversial  literature  were  freely  flung  at  one  another's 
heads  by  various  members  of  the  College.  Master  Henslow 
was  accused  of  not  having  communicated  for  seven  years 
past;  and  failing  to  purge  himself  of  "papistical  heresy," 
was  deprived.  Munden  suffered  the  same  fate  for  the  like 
offences.  Blandy  was  deprived  for  failing  to  purge  himself 
of  Papistry.  The  Warden  (White)  was  accused  of  conniving 
at  Papistry  in  the  College,  and  that  he  was  exceedingly 
slack  in  enforcing  attendance  in  chapel  and  in  administer- 
ing the  Communion.  Certain  absentees  were  deprived  for 
non-appearance.  Dr.  Rashdall  finally  says  that  "  during 
the  following  years  a  considerable  sprinkling  of  Fellows 
were  removed  for  non-residence,  most  of  whom  were  prob- 
ably men  who  could  no  longer  reconcile  themselves  to  an 
enforced  conformity."    These  details  may  appear  to  be  out 

1  Cath.  Record  Soc.  Publ.,  vol.  i,  p.  43.  Nicholas  Sander's  Report 
to  Card.  Moroni. 

2  Cf.  RashdalFs  History,  pp.  115-29. 


280  THE  UNIVERSITIES 

of  proportion  and  trivial;  but  by  such  details  alone  is  it 
possible  really  to  gauge  what  was  the  true  state  of  affairs 
at  Oxford,  and  to  grasp  that  what  the  visiting  bishops  and 
others  said  about  the  Universities  early  in  Elizabeth's  reign 
was  true,  and  that  the  picture  handed  down  by  Camden 
and  his  copyists  is  fanciful  and  misleading. 

University  College  furnishes  another  instance  of  the  in- 
adequacy of  Mr.  Gee's  treatment  of  this  disturbed  period. 
He  does  not  include  in  his  list  of  deprived  Heads  or  Fellows 
either  Anthony  Salvyn  or  James  Dugdale;  and  yet  Mr.  A. 
C.  Hamilton '  points  out  that  Salvyn  resigned  his  post 
almost  immediately  on  the  death  of  Queen  Mary,  and  the 
following  year  suffered  deprivation  of  his  preferment  of  the 
Mastership  of  Sherburn  Hospital,  near  Durham.  Mr. 
Hamilton  then  proceeds  to  say :  "  Amongst  the  number 
deprived  was  James  Dugdale,  Master  of  University  College. 
He  was  not  present  at  the  visitation  by  the  Vice-Chancellor's 
commissary  on  17th  November,  1 561 ;  and  as  the  Senior 
Fellow  made  oath  that  he  had  been  duly  cited,  the  Master 
for  non-appearance  was  pronounced  contumacious."  That 
this  event  had  been  expected  is  made  plain  by  the  appoint- 
ment of  his  successor  that  very  same  day.  The  fact  that  he 
had  held  office  for  nearly  three  years,  and  had,  like  many 
more,  survived  the  visit  of  the  commissioners  in  1559,  is  of 
itself  significant.  Mr.  Hamilton  says  distinctly  elsewhere ' 
that  he  refused  to  acknowledge  the  Queen's  supremacy; 
and  he  suggests  that  even  after  Dugdale's  departure,  the 
College  showed  Catholic  leanings,  since  it  offered  refuge  to 
William  Hawle  when  he  was  expelled  from  Merton.3 

At  All  Souls'  College  only  two  Fellows,  Thomas  Dol- 
man and  Thomas  Dorman,  appear  to  have  been  ex- 
pelled for  "  non-compliance  "  in  refusing  to  take  the  oath 
of  Supremacy.  Jasper  Haywood,  who  afterwards  entered 
the  Society  of  Jesus,  was,  in  the  opinion  of  Mr.  C.  G.  Rob- 

1  Coll.  Hist.  Series :  Hist,  of  University  College,  p.  84. 
'  P.  83. 

3  Cf.  for  the  form  of  Dugdale's  deprivation,  P.R.O.  Dom.  Eliz., 
XX,  No.  26.  1 


THE  UNIVERSITIES  281 

ertson,'  probably  also  forced  to  leave  the  College  on  the 
same  grounds  and  at  the  same  time.  John  Warner  was 
Warden  of  the  College  on  Elizabeth's  accession,  and  man- 
aged to  pass  muster  with  the  commissioners  of  1559;  but 
on  his  retirement  in  1565,  his  successor,  Richard  Barber, 
when  there  was  question  of  destroying  the  College  church 
plate  and  vestments,  showed  strong  opposition,  and,  in 
Mr.  Robertson's  words,  "  revealed  to  the  Government  the 
obstinate  courage  of  the  party  of  the  old  tradition,"  a  in  this 
apparently  merely  following  the  "  tradition  "  handed  on  to 
him.  Archbishop  Parker  had  written  in  1 564,  urging  the 
authorities  of  All  Souls'  College  to  sell  their  "  superfluous 
plate";  his  order  was  unheeded,  and  on  5th  March,  1566-7, 
he  again  urged,  somewhat  peremptorily,3  that  "  certain 
plate  reserved  in  your  College  whereat  divers  men  justly 
be  offended  to  remain  in  such  superstitious  fashion  as  it  is 
of,"  "  should  be  defaced  "  ;  and  that  a  "  perfect  inventory  " 
of  all  the  church  stuff  should  be  forwarded  to  him.  The 
inventory  may  be  seen  in  the  volume  just  quoted  from,4 
and  from  this  it  may  be  gathered  that  they  still  possessed 
a  goodly  stock  of  articles  "  which  serve  not  to  use  at  these 
days,"  as  the  Archbishop  phrased  it.5  The  inventory  was 
duly  sent,  but  the  Archbishop  had  still  reason  to  complain 
on  26th  March,  1567,  that  they  "do  retain  yet  .  .  .  divers 
monuments  of  superstition," "  and  therefore  ordered  them 
in  the  Queen's  name  to  forward  to  him  at  the  earliest 
opportunity  "  wholly  and  entirely,  every  thing  and  things  " 
mentioned  in  the  inventory.  Moreover,  the  Warden  and 
two  of  the  Fellows,  Humphrey  Brooksby  and  Master 
Foster,  were  summoned  to  present  themselves  in  London, 
there  to  answer  for  their  contumacy.  Later,  on  19th  April, 
1567,  four  more  Fellows,  J.  Mallocke,  R.  Braye,  Robert 
Franklin,  and  Stephen  Brill,  were  in  addition  ordered  to 
make  their  personal  appearance  before  the  Ecclesiastical 

1  Coll.  Hist.  Series,  Hist,  of  All  Souls,  p.  67.  s  P.  67. 

3  Parker  Corresfi.,  No.  227. 

1  P.  297,  note.  5  Ibid. 

6  Ibid.,  No.  228. 


282  THE  UNIVERSITIES 

Commission.1  Mr.  Robertson  says 2  that  the  College  Re- 
gister, under  the  date  of  23rd  April,  contains  the  order 
given  to  Barber  to  cause  the  church  plate  (with  specified 
exceptions)  "  to  be  defaced  and  broken,"  and  a  certificate, 
that  the  order  had  been  obeyed,  sent  up.3  Archbishop 
Parker  wrote  to  Cecil 4  that  "  as  for  All  Souls'  College 
plate,  [it]  is  turned  whole  and  reserved  as  bullion  among 
them,  their  church  books  only  turned  out  of  the  way."  Mr. 
Robertson  points  out 5  that  much  must  have  been  kept  back 
secretly,  for  "  five  years  actually  elapsed,  and  then  in  May 
°f  I573>  a  new  a°d  largely  Puritan  Commission  .  .  .  brought 
them  to  book.  '  As  you  will  answer  to  the  contrary  at  your 
peril,'  the  order  ran,  'within  eight  days,  all  copes,  vest- 
ments, albs,  Mass  books,  crosses  and  such  superstitious  and 
idolatrous  monuments  must  be  defaced.'  The  College  made 
the  eight  days  eight  months.  In  December,  1573,  a  final 
peremptory  command  '  to  make  the  true  certificate '  was 
issued,  and  at  length  was  grudgingly  obeyed.  It  had  taken 
nine  years  to  bring  about  the  '  defacing  ';  and  the  hoarded 
'  monuments  of  superstition '  now  shared  the  same  fate  as 
the  reredos  and  the  altars  of  the  Chapel." 

Mr.  H.  W.  C.  Davis  in  his  History  of  Balliol  College 6 
points  out  that  whatever  may  have  been  the  religious  com- 
plexion of  that  foundation  under  the  Edwardine  lapse, 
during  the  Marian  reaction  it  "became  Catholic  to  the 
core,  so  that  many  years  of  Elizabeth's  vigilant  regime 
barely  sufficed  to  make  the  College  Anglican  again."7  In 
illustration  of  this  somewhat  common  and  general  experi- 
ence, he  mentions  the  fact  that  William  Wryght  retired 
from  the  Mastership  owing  to  his  unwillingness  "  to  adopt 
the  new  settlement,"  and  was  succeeded  by  Francis  Bab- 
ington.    Three  Fellows   retired    in   1559   and   another  in 

1  Parker  Corresp.,  No.  230. 

2  Hist.  0/ All  Souls,  p.  70. 

3  This  document  is  printed  in  Parker  Corresp.,  p.  301,  note. 

4  Parker  Corresp.,  No.  233,  12th  August,  1567. 

5  Hist,  of  All  Souls'  Coll.,  p.  70. 

e  Coll.  Hist.  Series.  7  P.  89. 


THE  UNIVERSITIES  283 

1560,  and  one  Barker,  who  was  admitted  as  a  chaplain  in 
August,  1559,  threw  up  his  Fellowship  before  a  year  was 
out.   "  Others,  however,  refused  to  retire  from  the  battle." 

What  degree  of  conformity  was  displayed  by  Babington 
to  secure  his  tenure  of  the  Mastership  does  not  transpire ; 
but  "there  is  no  reason  to  believe,"  according  to  Mr.  Davis, 
"  that  his  conformity  at  Elizabeth's  accession  was  in  the 
least  sincere  .  .  .  the  hypocrisy  of  Babington  might  long 
have  remained  unsuspected  "  but  that  "  his  record  was  sub- 
jected to  a  searching  examination,  and  in  1565  ...  he  was 
publicly  proclaimed  a  Romanist,  and  all  his  benefices  were 
declared  forfeit.  It  was  less  easy  to  destroy  the  traces  of 
his  influence.  For  some  years  afterwards,  Lincoln l  re- 
mained ...  a  Romanist  seminary." 2  Mr.  Davis  also 
mentions  that  in  1 567  a  brother  of  Father  Henry  Garnet, 
S.J.,  "was  expelled  from  his  Fellowship;  although  the 
cause  is  not  stated,  we  can  hardly  account  for  it  otherwise 
than  on  religious  grounds." 3  Father  Robert  Persons,  the 
well-known  Jesuit,  and  Christopher  Bagshaw  were  also 
members  of  Balliol.  It  may  be  useful  to  quote  here  another 
testimony  as  to  the  religious  leanings  of  this  foundation 
even  after  several  years  of  Elizabethan  supervision.  The 
Record  Office  possesses  documents  which,  although  un- 
dated, are  provisionally  ascribed  to  the  year  1580.  The 
one  now  to  be  laid  under  contribution  is  probably  of  still 
later  date,  but  internal  evidence  proves  that  it  cannot  be 
earlier,  for  the  Master  therein  mentioned,  Dr.  Lylye,  was 
elected  to  that  post  in  August,  1580.  The  unnamed  writer 
of  the  paper  in  question  states: — "  That  Balliol  College  hath 
not  been  free  from  the  suspicion  of  Papistry  this  long  time, 
it  appeareth  by  the  men  that  have  been  of  the  house,  namely 
Brian  and  Persons.  With  Persons,  and  since  his  departure 
from  the  College  hath  Turner,  Bagshaw,  Staverton,  and  one 
Pilcher  been  Fellows,  all  which  were  grievously  suspected 
of  religion.  And  certain  it  is  that  this  Pilcher  is  gone  this 
year  from  thence  to  Rheims,  looking  daily  for  Bagshaw  as 

1  To  which  he  had  removed  in  1560. 

2  P.  105.  3  P.  106. 


284  THE  UNIVERSITIES 

he  did  report  to  one  Caesar.  Staverton  is  in  like  manner 
departed  the  College ;  and  it  is  thought  that  both  Bagshaw 
and  he  be  gone  over  the  seas.  It  is  said  that  Turner  also 
either  is  gone  or  shall  go  beyond  the  seas  with  a  physician 
to  whom  the  Queen's  Majesty  hath  given  leave  to  pass  and 
to  take  one  with  him.  It  is  thought  that  some  of  these 
have  left  their  resignations  of  their  Fellowships  with  their 
scholars  whom  they  have  trained  up,  as  Bagshaw  to  Elis 
his  scholar,  and  Staverton  to  his  scholar  Blount,  which  if 
they  be  Fellows,  the  College  will  remain  in  his  deserved 
name  of  suspicion  of  Papistry.  This  may  be  foreseen  in 
causing  the  Master,  who  is  Dr.  Lylye,  to  place  those  which 
be  known  to  be  zealous  and  godly ;  the  election  is  at  St. 
Katherine's  Day  [25th  November]  or  after  presently."  l 

Babington,  the  Head  of  Balliol,  had,  as  already  men- 
tioned, migrated  to  Lincoln  College,  there  taking  the  place 
of  Henry  Henshaw  [or  Heronshaw],  who  was  elected  Rector 
a  few  weeks  before  Queen  Mary's  death,  but  was  ejected 
by  Elizabeth's  Visitors  about  the  middle  of  1560.2  Ac- 
cording to  the  College  historian,  Babington  "  did  nothing 
to  discourage  Romanism,  and,  finding  his  fidelity  to  his 
patrons  suspected,  he  resigned  his  Rectorship  in  the  be- 
ginning of  1563.  In  1565  he  was  deprived  of  his  benefices 
for  Romanism."  3  Mr.  Clark  does  not  find  that  any  Fel- 
lows left  with  him ;  but  surmises  that  "  some  five  of  the 
eleven  Fellows  may  have  gone  out  at  the  same  time  [as 
Henshaw],  but  we  cannot  be  certain,  the  records  being  so 
incomplete."  It  is  just  this  incompleteness  of  records  that 
baffles  any  hope  that  might  be  entertained  of  attaining 
finality  in  the  particular  line  of  research  now  engaging  our 
attention :  that  incompleteness  seems,  however,  to  be  the 
prop  upon  which  those  rely  who  endeavour  to  prove  that 
there  were  comparatively  few  persons  who  underwent  de- 
privation;  and  such   finality  as  can   be   attained    can  be 

1  P.R.O.  Dom.  Eliz.,  cxlvi,  No.  10.    Christopher  Bagshawe  left  his 
Fellowship  in  1582  ;  cf.  Wood,  Athenae,  i,  p.  426. 

2  Rev.  A.  Clark,  Coll.  Hist.  Series:  Hist,  of  Lincoln  Coll.,  p.  42. 

3  P-  45- 


THE  UNIVERSITIES  285 

arrived  at  only  by  a  minute  piecing  together  of  scattered 
fragments  of  evidence;  by  a  comparison  of  analogies;  by 
drawing  probable  inferences  from  carefully  ascertained,  if 
isolated,  facts. 

Babington's  influence  was  not  altogether  destroyed  by 
his  removal.  He  was  succeeded  by  John  Bridgewater,  M.A., 
of  Brasenose  College,  appointed  14th  April,  1563;  "and 
soon  the  College  became  permeated  with  Romanist  feel- 
ing." l  This  is  not  surprising,  if  his  subsequent  career  be 
borne  in  mind.  Wood  says  that  he  resigned  his  office  in 
1574  to  avoid  expulsion;  Mr.  Clark  distinctly  states  that 
his  deprivation  took  place  on  20th  July,  1574."  Many, 
afterwards  distinguished  for  their  labours  in  the  cause  of  the 
Catholic  Church,  as  he  himself  was,  were  his  pupils  at  Lin- 
coln College,  such  as  Walter  Harte,  John  Gibbon,  William 
Harris,  Thomas  Marshall,  and  William  Giffard,  who  entered 
Lincoln  as  a  commoner  in  1570,  postulated  his  B.A.  in 
1573,  but  was  refused  as  a  "suspect,"3  finally,  after  be- 
coming Dean  of  Lille,  and  resigning  that  preferment  to 
join  the  Benedictine  Order  in  which  he  held  high  offices, 
he  was  appointed  Archbishop  of  Rheims,  and  thus  became 
First  Peer  of  France.  Mr.  Clark  says  that  on  Bridgewater's 
departure  and  the  appointment  of  John  Tatham  as  his 
successor  in  the  Headship,  "  the  one  record  of  this  Rector- 
ship is  that  the  College  was  still  under  suspicion  of  Ro- 
manism." * 

Mr.  Brodrick,  in  his  Memorials  of  Merton  College?  says 
that  "  of  the  grounds  upon  which  he  [Dr.  Reynolds]  was 
now  deposed,  we  have  no  direct  evidence;  but  there  is  an 
entry  in  the  College  Register,  dated  7th  September,  1559, 
which  shows  how  summary  the  process  was.  On  that  day, 
Lord  Williams,  Dr.  Wright,  and  Dr.  White  called  on  the 
Warden  at  his  lodgings,  and  announced  to  him  in  the 
presence  of  several  Fellows,  that  his  place  was  vacant,  the 
sentence  having  been  recorded  against  him  three  days 
earlier  by  the  Queen  herself."0     It  is  said  that  he  died  not 

1  P.  45-  '  P-  45-  3  P.  47-  4  P.  49- 

5  Oxford  Historical  Society  Publications.  °  P.  49. 


286  THE  UNIVERSITIES 

long  afterwards;  by  some,  in  prison  at  Exeter,1  by  others, 
in  the  Marshalsea.2  Dr.  Tresham  is  expressly  stated  by  Mr. 
Brodrick  to  have  refused  the  oath  of  Supremacy;3  and 
the  Bishop  of  London,  in  a  letter  dated  3rd  December,  1 560, 
sent  down  the  order  of  the  Ecclesiastical  Commissioners 
for  the  expulsion  of  three  Fellows :  Robert  Dawkes,  David 
de  la  Hyde,  and  Anthony  Atkyns,4  for  "  denying  the 
Queen's  Superiority."  Reynolds's  successor  as  Warden  was 
Dr.  Gervaise;  but  he  took  his  departure  early  in  1563.  Mr. 
Brodrick  says:5  "it  is  not  certain  whether  his  resignation 
was  voluntary  or  forced  upon  him  by  the  Visitor  in  conse- 
quence of  his  popish  sympathies."  In  May,  1562,  a  visita- 
tion had  been  held  which  resulted  in  the  expulsion  of 
William  Hawle  the  sub-Warden,  who  had  hidden  the  old 
Mass  books  and  other  "  monuments  of  superstition,"  and 
was  accused  of  persuading  his  pupils  to  Papistry.6  He 
found  an  asylum  in  University  College,  and  died  there 
shortly  after. 

Heylin  gives  a  more  graphic  and  explicit  account  of  what 
happened  at  Merton  College.7  "  A  spirit  of  sedition  had 
begun  to  show  itself  in  the  year  last  past  [1 561]  "  he  wrote, 

1  P.  49.  2  P.  165.  3  P.  49. 

4  Cf.  Parker  Corresp.,  p.  75,  No.  60  and  note.  He  died  in  poverty 
not  long  after,  and  was  buried  in  the  church  of  Sibbertoft,  near  North- 
ampton, where  the  following  pathetic  monumental  inscription  may 
still  be  seen : 

Presbyteri  dudum  fuerat  qui  munere  notus 
Atkynus  solide  et  religionis  amans 
Dum  vagus  hac  iliac  incerto  tramite  oberrat 
Hie  fato  functum  terrea  gleba  tegit. 

Anno  Dni  1564.    Septembris  20. 

Atkyns,  priestt,  religious  &  lerned 
Not  haveing  where  to  dwell 
Wandering,  sycke,  at  last  here  stayed 
Till  death  did  lyfe  expell. 

3  P.  165. 

c  Cf.  B.  W.  Henderson,  Coll.  Hist.  Series,  Hist,  of  Merton  Coll., 
pp.  89-90. 

7   The  Reformation  in  England,  ed.  1670;  Hist,  of  Q.  Elis.,  p.  153. 


THE  UNIVERSITIES  287 

"...  which  seeds  being  sown,  began  first  to  show  them- 
selves in  a  petit  rebellion  in  Merton  College  in  Oxon; 
sufficiently  discovered  by  those  small  beginnings,  that  some 
design  of  greater  consequence  was  in  agitation.  The  War- 
denship  of  that  House  being  void  by  the  death  of  Gervaise, 
one  Man  is  chosen  to  the  place.  But  his  election  being 
questioned,  and  his  admission  thereupon  opposed  by  a 
contrary  faction,  the  government  of  the  College  devolved 
of  course  upon  one  Hall,  a  Senior  Fellow,  sufficiently  known 
to  be  of  popish  inclinations,  though  for  the  saving  of  his 
place  he  had  conformed  as  others  did,  to  the  present  time. 
No  sooner  was  he  in  this  power,  but  he  retrieves  some  old 
superstitious  hymns,  which  formerly  had  been  sung  on 
several  Festivals  in  the  time  of  Popery,  prohibiting  the  use 
of  such  as  had  been  introduced  by  Gervaise  the  late  War- 
den there.  This  gave  encouragement  and  opportunity  to 
the  popish  party  to  insult  over  the  rest,  especially  over  all 
those  of  the  younger  sort  who  had  not  been  trained  up  in 
their  popish  principles;  so  that  it  seemed  a  penal  matter 
to  be  thought  a  Protestant.  Notice  whereof  being  given  to 
Archbishop  Parker  (the  ordinary  Visitor  of  that  College 
in  the  right  of  his  See),  he  summoneth  Hall  on  the  20  May 
[1562]  to  appear  before  him,  and  caused  the  citation  to  be 
fastened  to  the  gate  of  the  College.  But  his  authority  in 
that  case  was  so  little  regarded,  that  the  seal  of  the  citation 
was  torn  off  by  some  of  that  party.  Hereupon  followed  a 
solemn  visitation  of  the  College  by  the  said  Archbishop. 
The  result  whereof  was  briefly  this,  that  all  were  generally 
examined;  Man  confirmed  Warden,  Hall  justly  expelled, 
his  party  publicly  admonished,  the  young  scholars  relieved, 
the  Papists  curbed  and  repressed,  and  Protestants  counten- 
anced and  encouraged  in  the  whole  University." 

Trinity  College,  having  been  founded  only  in  Mary's 
reign,  was,  not  unnaturally,  Catholic  in  tone;  hence,  when 
the  visitation  of  1559  began  its  sifting-out  process,  Thomas 
Slythurst,  its  first  President,  finding  himself  unable  to  take 
the  required  oaths,  suffered  deprivation  in  September, 
1 559,  and  is  said  to  have  died  in  1560,  a  prisoner  in  the 


288  THE  UNIVERSITIES 

Tower.  The  Rev.  H.  E.  D.  Blakiston  says  *  that  "  it  is  im- 
possible in  the  absence  of  the  Computus  for  the  years  1557- 
1560  to  give  exact  dates;  but  it  appears  that  five  more  of 
the  Fellows  and  some  of  the  scholars  quitted  their  places 
in  1 560-1."  He  goes  on  to  say  that  "it  is  not  certain  that 
they  were  all  sufferers  for  conscience'  sake,  since  some  .  .  . 
are  afterwards  found  in  possession  of  benefices  " ;  but  it  has 
already  been  pointed  out  that  this  argument  is  not  con- 
clusive, and  that  the  reason  which  determined  anyone  one 
way  or  another  in  1559  may  have  been  overridden  in  1560 
or  1 56 1.  Certain  it  is  that  though  the  first  Elizabethan 
visitation  might  be  supposed  to  have  purged  the  house, 
nevertheless,  long  after  that  the  taint  of  Popery  betrayed 
itself.  In  1567  two  Fellows  resigned,  no  doubt  as  a  con- 
sequence of  Bishop  Home's  visitation  in  September,  1 566 ; 
one  of  these,  Leonard  Fitzsymons,  went  to  Hart  Hall,  and 
later  became  a  priest ; 2  Christopher  Wharton  threw  up  his 
Fellowship  in  1 569,  was  ordained  abroad,  and  died  for  his 
priesthood  in  1600.  In  1570  there  was  trouble  over  the 
church  plate,  as  there  had  been  at  All  Souls',  and  in  the 
end  it  was  defaced;  in  the  following  year  no  less  than 
six  of  the  Fellows  resigned  or  were  ejected,  of  whom 
Thomas  Forde  became  a  priest  and  was  subsequently 
martyred  in  1582;  George  Blackwell  retired  to  Gloucester 
Hall  till  1574,  when  he  went  abroad  and  later  was  created 
Archpriest  over  the  English  Mission;  and  Thomas  Allen 
went  to  Gloucester  Hall,  where  he  managed  to  remain  till 
his  death  at  an  advanced  age  in  1632.  Mr.  Blakiston  gives 
in  addition  the  names  of  many  more  who  were  refused  de- 
grees on  suspicion  of  being  Papists,  or  who  left  Oxford  for 
Rheims ;  and  this  as  late  as  1583.  Hertford  College  became 
a  recognised  "  refuge  for  those  adherents  of  the  old  religion 
to  whom  a  College  without  a  chapel  furnished  an  oppor- 
tunity to  evade  attendance  at  the  new  services."  3 

St.  John's  College  was,  as  Mr.  R.  Simpson  says:4  "A 

1  Coll.  Hist.  Series :  Hist,  of  Tritiity,  p.  76.  2  P.  77. 

3  S.  G.  Hamilton,  College  Histories  Series:  Hist,  of  Hertford,  p.  15. 

*  Life  of  Edmund  Campion,  ed.  1896,  pp.  6-7. 


THE  UNIVERSITIES  289 

nursery  for  Catholics."  The  founder,  Sir  Thomas  White, 
was  a  Catholic;  and,  when  Elizabeth  abolished  the  Mass, 
and  the  President,  Dr.  Alexander  Belsire,  was  deprived  by 
the  royal  commissioners  in  1559  or  1560  for  Popery,1 
White  "  took  away  all  the  crucifixes,  vestments,  and  holy 
vessels  that  he  had  given,  and  hid  them  in  his  house,  to  be 
restored  in  happier  times."  Belsire's  successor,  Dr.  William 
Ely,  who  was  elected  by  the  scholars  and  confirmed  by 
White,  was  as  much  a  Catholic  as  his  predecessor;  but  he 
managed  to  hold  his  post  till  1563  without  acknowledging 
the  Queen's  Supremacy.  In  that  year  the  oath  was  tendered 
to  him,  and  he  was  ejected.  William  Stock,  Principal  of 
Gloucester  Hall,  succeeded  Ely,  but  was  also  ejected  [withjin 
a  year  for  Popery.    In  1564,  Sir  Thomas  White  made  John 

1  Mr.  W.  H.  Hutton,  in  his  History  of  St.  fohn's  College  (College 
Histories  Series),  endeavours  to  divest  Dr.  Belsire  of  the  honour  of 
deprivation  for  conscience'  sake,  and  whittles  away  the  College  Re- 
gister phrase  "propter  religionem,"  by  resort  to  the  safe  methods  of 
suggestion,  relieving  himself  of  the  responsibility  of  adducing  proof, 
by  stating  that  his  deprivation  was  due  to  "  the  fact  that  he  cheated, 
or  was  said  to  have  cheated,  the  Founder  of  ^20"  [p.  19].  No  shred 
of  proof  is  forthcoming  beyond  Sir  Thomas  White's  reasons  for  the 
dismissal  of  the  President  of  his  College ;  but,  fortunately,  there  fol- 
lows Dr.  Belsire's  denial  of  the  justice  of  those  reasons.  Happily  Mr. 
Hutton  writes  with  such  evident  bias  that  he  discounts  the  value  of 
his  own  suggestions.  It  may  be  useful  to  refer  here  to  a  statement  on 
p.  21.  Mr.  Hutton  points  out  that  Dr.  Ely  was  deprived  of  any  pre- 
ferments he  stood  possessed  of,  and  says,  "  his  only  benefice  in  the 
English  Church  had  been  the  Rectory  of  Crick,  Northamptonshire"  ; — 
which,  by  the  way,  is  incorrect.  Cf.  Gee,  Elizabethan  Clergy,  p.  257. 
It  is  of  interest  to  note,  as  indicative  of  the  difficulty  of  tracing  to  their 
true  sources  disappearances  from  incumbencies  about  this  date,  that 
in  Bridge's  History  of  Northamptonshire,  i,  p.  561,  the  list  of  incumb- 
ents of  Crick  there  furnished  mentions  Robert  Cosen  as  collated 
thereto  on  4th  January,  1548;  and  then,  without  naming  Dr.  Ely, 
gives,  as  immediately  following,  William  Stoke,  M.A.,  as  rector  there 
in  1 561.  This  Stoke  is  surely  he  who  was  also  Dr.  Ely's  successor  in 
the  Mastership  of  St.  John's.  On  such  evidence  it  might  conceivably 
be  denied  that  Dr.  Ely  had  ever  held  this  living  or  been  deprived  of 
it ;  and,  indeed,  Mr.  Gee  does  not  refer  to  it  in  his  lists. 

2  They  were  given  back  to  the  College  in  1602  by  White's  niece, 
Mrs.  Leach. 

U 


290  THE  UNIVERSITIES 

Robinson  President ;  he  remained  so  for  eight  years,  till 
July,  1 572,  when,  White  being  dead,  and  the  Puritan  Home, 
Bishop  of  Winchester,  having  succeeded  in  upsetting  White's 
arrangements  which  deprived  the  bishops  of  that  See  of 
the  visitation  of  the  College  and  vested  it  in  trustees  .  .  . 
the  character  of  the  College  underwent  a  complete  change. 
Tobie  Mathew  was  made  President  (1572),  the  suspected 
Papists  (nine  out  of  twenty),  were  ejected  from  the  Fellow- 
ships, and  their  places  were  filled  by  Puritans."  Mr.  Hutton 
is  not  a  particularly  safe  guide;  but  in  cases  where  he  can 
be  controlled  by  other  evidence,  such  as  that  furnished 
by  Mr.  Simpson  or  Anthony  a  Wood,  there  is  less  danger 
in  following  him.1 

It  remains  to  mention  some  of  the  members  of  this 
College,  of  many  amongst  whom  its  annalist  records:  "  al- 
terata  religione  aut  cessit  aut  amotus  est."2  John  Bavant, 
Ralph  Windon,  Leonard  Stopes,  Gregory  Martin,  Edmund 
Campion,  Thomas  Bramstone  (who  received  Sir  Thomas 
White's  leave  to    reside   with    Abbot    Feckenham),3  John 

1  Mr.  Hutton  complains,  p.  67,  note,  of  Mr.  Simpson's  Campion,  a 
work  evidently  very  distasteful  to  him.  "  Of  the  accuracy  of  this  in- 
teresting biography,"  he  writes,  "some  idea  may  be  obtained  by 
observing  that  in  it  William  Roper  is  called  '  the  descendant  of  Thomas 
More.'"  It  is  fractious  and  hypercritical  to  cavil  at  the  use  of  such  a 
phrase.  It  may  be,  perhaps,  somewhat  loose  in  application,  but  inas- 
much as  Roper  was  More's  daughter's  husband,  it  is  measurably  cor- 
rect ;  but  such  petty  criticism  comes  badly  from  one  who  can  admit 
into  his  pages  so  egregious  a  blunder  as  the  statement  that  Campion 
was  "executed  at  Tyburn  in  1608"  [v.  p.  45]. 

2  Quoted  by  Hutton,  p.  45. 

3  Thomas  Bramstone's  career  is  of  particular  interest.  He  himself 
gave  it  in  his  examination,  30th  April,  1586;  cf.  P.R.O.  Dom.  Eliz., 
CLXXXVin,  No.  46.  He  admitted  that  he  had  taken  no  degrees  in 
Schools.  "  He  was  brought  up  in  his  youth  in  the  grammar-school  in 
Canterbury  under  old  Mr.  Twyne ;  from  Mr.  Twyne  he  went  to  West- 
minster, and  there  continued  a  year,  and  was  novice  in  the  Abbey. 
From  thence  he  went  to  Mr.  Roper  of  Eltham,  where  he  continued 
about  a  year.  From  thence  he  went  to  St.  John's  College,  where  he 
continued  about  three  or  four  years,  and  was  Fellow  of  that  College. 
From  thence  he  went  to  wait  upon  Dr.  Feckenham  who  was  in  the 
Tower,  where  he  continued  so  about  two  years.   From  thence  he  went 


THE  UNIVERSITIES  291 

Bereblock,  a  skilful  artist;  Henry  Shaw,  William  Wiggs, 
John  Meredith,  George  Russell,1  Cuthbert  Mayne,  John 
Roberts  and  John  Jones  (the  last  two  here  named  both  be- 
came Benedictines  early  in  the  seventeenth  century),  were 
all  either  converts  to  Rome  from  St.  John's,  or  else '  defended 
the  Pope's  jurisdiction.'  Many  of  these  names  stand  out  pro- 
minently in  the  lists  of  protagonists  of  these  troubled  days; 
their  very  number  is  an  eloquent  testimony  to  the  tendency 
of  religious  thought  that  clung  to  Sir  Thomas  White's 
foundation,  and  is  a  disproof  that  Oxford  was  conformable 
to  the  religious  changes  till  several  decades  had  elapsed. 

There  remain  two  Colleges  whose  records  furnish  points 
of  peculiar  interest.  They  are  Worcester  College,  formerly 
known  as  Gloucester  Hall,  and  Exeter  College. 

Gloucester  Hall  had,  up  to  the  time  of  the  suppression, 
been  the  Oxford  house  of  studies  for  members  of  the 
Benedictine  monasteries  throughout  England.  With  the 
dispersal  of  those  who  had  supported  and  peopled  it,"  Monks' 

to  serve  Sir  Thomas  Tresham,  to  whom  he  did  belong,  coming  and 
going,  about  ten  years,  and  was  schoolmaster  in  his  house  until  such 
time  as  the  Act  of  Parliament  was  made  that  none  should  teach  etc. 
.  .  .  which,  as  he  thinketh,  was  about  the  18th  year  of  the  Queen's 
Majesty's  reign.  From  Sir  Thomas  Tresham's  service  he  went  over 
sea ;  and  only  confessing  that  he  is  a  priest,  he  will  not  further  answer 
etc. ;  but  saith  he  was  no  priest  when  he  was  schoolmaster,  which  was 
ten  or  eleven  years  since.    Ordained  at  Rheims  by  Cardinal  Guise." 

1  Mr.  Hutton's  methods  are,  to  say  the  least,  curious.  Of  this  Fellow 
he  says,  p.  46:  "the  annalist  tells  of  one  who  was  Bursar,  became  a 
Papist,  embezzled  the  College  money,  and  fled."  Note  the  order,  with 
the  implied  interdependence:  mention  of  office,  change  of  religion, 
act  of  felony  and  injustice,  flight.  The  Latin  on  which  these  state- 
ments are  founded  is  as  follows :  "  Bursarius  Collegii  parum  fidelis 
abiit  non  sine  solvendo,  postea  mutata  religione,  etc."  I  venture  to 
submit  a  different  version  of  these  words  from  that  furnished  by  Mr. 
Hutton:  "The  Bursar  of  the  College,  not  altogether  trustworthy,  took 
his  departure,  but  not  without  settling  his  accounts;  afterwards  he 
changed  his  religion,  etc."  Again  note  the  order:  mention  of  office 
not  properly  fulfilled,  departure  after  making  good  any  default,  change 
of  religion.  This  correction  seems  only  an  act  of  justice  due  to  the 
memory  of  a  man  upon  whom  such  a  stigma  has  been  put,  or  at- 
tempted to  be  put,  by  Mr.  Hutton. 


292  THE  UNIVERSITIES 

Hall  "  fell  on  evil  times.  Sir  Thomas  White,  the  founder  of 
St.  John's  College,  bought  the  premises  in  1560,  and  leased 
them  to  William  Stock,  a  Fellow  of  St.  John's,  for  a  term 
of  twenty  years.  The  historian  of  the  house  :  says  of  him  : 
"In  1563  William  Stock  left  Gloucester  Hall  to  become 
President  of  St.  John's,  and  he  assigned  his  lease,  or  sublet, 
to  William  Palmer,  an  old  member  of  Brasenose,  who  lived 
to  suffer  much  for  the  Catholic  religion  which  he  professed. 
But  after  little  more  than  a  year  William  Stock  came 
back,  having  resigned  the  Presidency  of  St.  John's  from  a 
whimsical  fear  of  being  deprived,  and  he  remained  Prin- 
cipal till  1 573  ...  In  1 574  he  left  of  his  own  accord  .  .  .  died 
.  .  .  always  in  animo  Catholiciis,  in  1607."  In  his  time  the 
College  was  put  to  a  strange  use :  its  rooms  were  let  out  to 
tenants  who  were  neither  undergraduates  nor  tutors,  but 
were  refugee  Catholics,open  or  concealed, including  amongst 
their  number  George  Blackwell,  Thomas  Allen,  and  Thomas 
Warren.  Such  a  proceeding  hardly  served  to  gain  a  repu- 
tation for  "  soundness  "  for  the  Hall ;  and  in  later  days  it 
was  constantly  referred  to  as  being  a  hot-bed  of  Popery. 
Thus  the  College  historian  quotes  some  writer  (without 
reference)  as  saying:  "  Fanatics  keep  their  children  at  home, 
or  breed  them  in  private  schools  under  fanatics,  or  send 
them  beyond  seas,  though  before  the  war  they  did  not,  but 
did  send  them  to  the  University  to  Gloucester  College."  2 

Besides  Blackwell  and  Thomas  Allen,  already  men- 
tioned, others  to  find  shelter  within  the  gates  of  Gloucester 
Hall  were  Edmund  Rainolds,  who  lived  there  for  sixty 
years;  Dr.  William  Bishop,  resident  about  1572;  Sir  Wil- 
liam Catesby,  there  with  his  wife  in  1577,  who,  during 
their  residence,  gave  birth  to  a  daughter,  baptised,  not  by 
the  vicar  of  the  parish,  but  by  a  "  popish  priest."  Two 
of  their  sons  (one  connected  with  the  Gunpowder  Plot 
of  1605)  were  members  of  the  Hall,  as  were  also  Ralph 
Sheldon  and  Henry  Lawson,  who  belonged  to  families  long 
noted  for   their  devotion  to  the    Catholic  cause.     Small 

1  Coll.  Hist.  Series:  Hist,  of  Worcester  Coll.,  p.  96. 
!  P.  98. 


THE  UNIVERSITIES  293 

wonder  it  Is,  therefore,  if  the  notice  of  the  University  and 
other  authorities  was  attracted  to  such  a  centre  of  dis- 
affection. In  1577  William  Meredith,  "in  the  College  of 
Gloucester,"  was  presented  as  "  suspect  to  be  a  horrible 
Papist,  and  one  that  hath  not  received  the  Communion  at 
any  time  to  our  knowledges ;  also  the  common  fame  goeth 
that  he  is  a  maintainer  of  Papists  beyond  the  seas,  and 
that  of  late  he  hath  been  there  to  have  conference  with 
them ;  also,  he  being  offered  to  take  the  oath  of  the 
Supremacy  ministered  by  the  Ordinary,  he  utterly  refused 
the  same:  we  esteem  him  to  be  worth  .£50." l  In  an  appen- 
dix2 some  explanation  is  attempted  to  account  for  the 
phenomenon  of  this  College's  extended  immunity  from 
coercion.  The  suggestion  mooted  is  that  a  certain  propor- 
tion of  members  who  were  "  precluded  by  religious  scruples 
from  matriculating,  only  remained  so  long  as  the  Univer- 
sity would  allow  them  to  dispense  with  the  formality ;  and 
the  pronounced  Catholic  reputation  of  Gloucester  Hall 
would  lead  one  to  suppose  that  the  number  of  such 
students  was  large.  .  .  .  An  examination  of  the  list  leads 
to  an  almost  irresistible  conclusion  that  the  matriculation 
system  was  extremely  lax  .  .  .  the  Hall  either  saved  up 
its  students  in  order  that  as  many  as  possible  might  matri- 
culate at  one  time  [35  in  January,  1574;  15  in  1577;  33  in 
1578],  or  that  they  did  not  matriculate  at  all  [none  in  1575, 
!576,  1579,  or  1580]  till  the  University  insisted  on  it.  If 
any  such  irregularity  as  this  existed,  it  was  inevitable  that 
some  should  slip  through  the  net  and  pass  through  Glou- 
cester Hall  without  having  matriculated  at  all.  And  it  is 
very  noticeable  how  many  of  those  who  were  undoubtedly 
at  Gloucester  Hall  are  not  to  be  found  in  the  matriculation 
lists."  As  will  be  seen  when  the  case  of  Exeter  College  is 
considered,  Gloucester  Hall  was  frequented  largely  by 
West  of  England  and  Welsh  families;  and  these  retained 
and  clung  to  the  old  Faith  perhaps  longest  of  any  in  any 
other  part  of  the  kingdom.    As  the  historian  of  Worcester 

1   P.R.O.  Dom.  Eliz.,  cxvin,  No.  24. 
-  Hist,  of  Worcester  Coll.,  p.  256. 


294  THE  UNIVERSITIES 

College  puts  it:  "altogether  Wales,  Gloucester,  Devon, 
Cornwall  and  Somerset  were  responsible  for  no  less  than 
45  per  cent,  of  the  members  of  the  Hall." 

Mr.  W.  K.  Stride,  in  describing  Exeter  College,1  says 
that  in  Elizabeth's  time  that  foundation  appeared  to  be 
"  most  distinctly  Catholic,  for  it  was  then  that  men  had 
definitely  to  take  their  side.  John  Neale,  the  first  '  per- 
petual Rector,'  was  deprived  [in  1570]  for  refusing  to 
attend  the  reformed  service  in  chapel.  About  the  same 
time  several  Fellows  fled  the  country,  one  of  whom,  Bris- 
towe,  became  President  of  Douay."  Sherwin  and  Cornelius, 
both  Fellows  of  Exeter,  were  eventually  executed  for  their 
priesthood.  John  Cornelius  (or  Cornellis)  was  expelled  by 
the  royal  commissioners  in  August,  1578,  for  Popery."  In 
1570,  William  Wyot,  the  sub-Rector,  was  imprisoned  in  the 
Castle  and  in  Bocardo,  for  refusing  to  declare  what  Papists 
he  knew  to  be  in  the  College.3  Strype,  as  quoted  both  by 
Mr.  Boase  and  Mr.  Stride,  records,  indeed,  that  at  the  visita- 
tion of  1578-9,  "  in  Exeter  College,  of  eighty  were  found 
but  four  obedient  subjects;  all  the  rest  secret  or  open 
Roman  affectionaries,  and  particularly  one  Savage  of  that 
house,  a  most  earnest  defender  of  the  Pope's  Bull  and 
excommunication  of  the  Queen.  These  were  chiefly  such 
as  came  out  of  the  western  parts,  where  Popery  greatly 
prevailed,  and  the  gentry  bred  up  in  that  religion."  Thomas 
Percy,  later  to  become  one  of  the  Gunpowder  conspirators 
of  1605,  was  at  Exeter  College  in  1578.  Robert  Yendall, 
vicar  of  the  College  living  of  Menheniot,  in  Cornwall,  was 
one  of  those  (not  mentioned  by  Mr.  Gee)  who  abandoned 
their  livings  in  1559  rather  than  fall  in  with  the  religious 
changes  as  imposed  by  Act  of  Parliament.4  Others  whose 
consciences  would  not  suffer  them  to  retain  their  prefer- 
ments were  John  Feazard,  Stephen  Marks,  Roger  Crispin, 
Richard  Reede,  Christopher  Smale,  Francis  Bauger,  and 

1  Coll.  Hist.  Series:  Hist.  0/ Exeter  Coll.,  p.  47. 

1  Boase,  Register  of  Exeter  Coll.,  p.  78. 

3  Gutch,  Collectanea,  ii,  p.  169. 

4  Cf.  P.R.O.  Dom.  Eliz.,  VII,  No.  7- 


THE  UNIVERSITIES  295 

Edward  Risdon,  not  all  of  whom  find  a  place  in  Mr.  Gee's 
partial  lists. 

That  this  estimate  of  the  religious  condition  of  the  Uni- 
versities may  be  accepted  as  approximating  to  the  facts,  it 
might  be  sufficient  to  point  to  the  multitude  and  variety  of 
the  witnesses  here  cited  in  the  persons  of  the  various 
modern  historians  of  the  different  Colleges  in  both  centres 
of  learning.  But  the  evidence  of  that  sober  judge,  Arch- 
bishop Parker,  should  be  conclusive.  Writing  in  his  own 
name  and  in  that  of  his  fellow  commissioners  to  Sir  William 
Cecil,  on  16th  April,  1568,1  the  Archbishop  attests  the 
presence  of  many  Papists  at  both  Universities,  for  he  states 
that  "  having  in  fresh  memory  our  continual  proceedings 
in  this  commission  since  the  first  time  of  it  .  .  .  and  have 
done  therein  (as  we  trust)  good  service  to  God,  the  Queen, 
and  the  realm,  removing  by  authority  of  our  said  commis- 
sion, out  of  both  Universities,  divers  stubborn  Papists,  and 
head  adversaries  of  God's  true  religion,  to  the  number  of 
forty  and  more."  "It  seems  established  that  the  royal  com- 
missioners concerned  themselves  mainly  with  the  '  head 
adversaries,'  leaving  the  lesser  opponents  to  be  dealt  with 
in  ordinary  visitations  or  by  local  authority;  hence  the 
evidence  hitherto  adduced  has  been  kept  sedulously  within 
the  limits  of  actual  facts. 

The  points  that  seem  to  be  emphasised  by  this  study  of 
such  cases  as  have  come  down  to  us,  is  the  general  dis- 
satisfaction which  undoubtedly  existed  in  both  Universi- 
ties with  the  Elizabethan  settlement  of  religion,  though 
this  discontent,  evincing  itself  in  open  recalcitrance,  was 
always  much  more  marked  at  Oxford  than  at  Cambridge. 
It  will  be  noticed,  too,  that  in  the  majority  of  instances,  no 
information  is  vouchsafed  about  the  undergraduates;  only 
the  placemen,  those  whose  emoluments  and  preferments 
were  coveted  by  necessitous  exiles  and  reformers,  attract 

1  Such  is  the  date  given  in  a  contemporary  endorsement  of  it  in 
Lansd.  MS.  10,  No.  48;  but  in  the  Parker  Soc.  edition  of  the  Arch- 
bishop's Correspondence,  No.  264,  p.  343,  it  is  given  as  13th  April, 
1569. 


296  THE  UNIVERSITIES 

attention.  But  when  we  are  permitted  to  get  a  glimpse 
below  the  surface,  as  in  the  cases  of  Gloucester  Hall  and 
Exeter  College,  the  undercurrent  of  sentiment  existing 
among  the  students  shows  itself  just  as  strongly  as  amongst 
their  seniors.  The  importance  of  this  cannot  be  exag- 
gerated. These  young  lads,  in  the  vast  majority  of  instances, 
would  not  have  been  influenced  after  going  up  to  Oxford  or 
Cambridge.  They  took  their  religious  convictions  with  them, 
and  these  they  had  imbibed  in  their  own  homes.  Hence, 
if  there  was  such  an  appreciable  percentage  of  staunch 
Catholics,  whether  open  or  secret,  amongst  the  University 
students,  it  is  clear  that  they  merely  represented  in  two 
centres  the  feelings  and  aspirations  prevailing  in  the  midst 
of  their  homes,  and  amongst  the  dependents  of  their 
families.  And  just  as  the  opposition  to  religious  change 
manifested  itself  for  so  long  at  Oxford,  and  in  a  lesser 
degree  at  Cambridge,  so  that  opposition,  in  spite  of  bishops' 
reports  to  the  contrary,  will  have  been  equally  determined, 
though  circumspect,  throughout  the  length  and  breadth  of 
the  land.  In  other  words,  England  ceased  to  be  Catholic 
only  by  degrees;  and  the  change  was  due  not  to  conviction, 
but  to  the  steady  pressure  of  coercion,  as  applied  by  an 
ever  increasing  accumulation  of  penal  enactments. 


CHAPTER  VIII 

THE  TASK  OF  THE  ELIZABETHAN  BISHOPS 

I. —  The  Northern  Province 

LAUNCHED  upon  their  way,  the  new  bishops  quickly- 
got  to  work.  Very  soon,  however,  they  discovered 
that  the  task  before  them  was  not  so  easy  as  perhaps  in 
their  first  enthusiasm  they  had  imagined  it  would  be.  The 
parliamentary  power  that  had  put  them  in  possession  of  a 
great  public  trust  could  not  transfer  the  allegiance  of  their 
nominal  spiritual  subjects  from  their  predecessors  to  them- 
selves as  land  passes  from  hand  to  hand  by  a  stroke  of  the 
pen.  If  the  new  bishops  had  thought  that  they  had  but  to 
appear  in  their  respective  spheres  of  work  and  that  sub- 
mission would  instantly  follow,  they  were  quickly  unde- 
ceived, and  for  the  whole  period  over  which  this  enquiry 
extends,  the  disappointment  of  disillusionment  makes 
itself  felt  in  the  voluminous  correspondence  that  has  sur- 
vived to  this  day.  From  that  correspondence  shall  the 
story  unfold  itself,  related  to  us  by  the  chief  actors  them- 
selves— by  those  who  were  best  qualified  to  know  the  truth 
of  the  facts  they  disclose.  And  at  once  it  is  as  well  to 
notice  that  the  bishops  speak  with  a  double  voice.  Occa- 
sionally, writing  officially,  presumably  for  the  Queen's 
perusal,  they  refer  optimistically  to  the  good  progress  of 
the  Reformation  in  their  dioceses ;  but  this  class  of  docu- 
ment is  rare.  The  vast  majority  of  the  letters  they  penned, 
mostly  for  Cecil's  private  information,  are  full  of  despond- 
ency, of  confessions  that  circumstances  are  too  strong  for 
them — in  a  word,  of  failure.  In  the  beginning  this  might 
not  be  wondered  at ;  but  even  after  long  years  of  continuous 
297 


298     TASK  OF  THE  ELIZABETHAN  BISHOPS 

pressure,  the  resistance  was  still  strong;  and  it  was  only 
by  the  wearing-down  process  of  more  than  a  generation 
of  imprisonment  and  fining  and  exclusion  from  office,  that 
at  last  any  real  impression  was  made  upon  the  steadfast- 
ness and  Faith  of  the  nation.  Truly  has  it  been  said  that  the 
old  religion  was  not  abandoned  knowingly  and  willingly 
by  its  adherents,  but  that  it  was  filched  from  them.  This 
conclusion  hardly  tallies  with  the  usually  accepted  one, 
which  may  be  given  in  the  words  of  the  late  Bishop  Mandell 
Creighton:1  "In  England,  generally,  the  religious  settle- 
ment was  welcomed  by  the  people,  and  corresponded  to 
their  wishes.  The  English  were  not  greatly  interested  in 
theological  questions.  They  detested  the  Pope;  they 
wished  for  services  which  they  could  understand,  and  were 
weary  of  superstition.  The  number  of  staunch  Romanists 
or  strong  Protestants  was  very  small.  The  clergy  were 
prepared  to  acquiesce  in  the  change."  Which  statement  is 
more  nearly  in  accordance  with  facts  will  appear  in  the 
sequel. 

That  many  of  the  clergy  accepted  the  oaths  of  Supre- 
macy and  Uniformity  cannot  be  denied.  That  this  imme- 
diate acceptance  represented  the  inner  convictions  of  the 
moment  of  those  so  conforming  is  not  merely  doubtful,  it  is 
in  numberless  cases,  on  the  showing  of  the  bishops  them- 
selves, absolutely  impossible.  Many  stayed  in  their  cures 
and  conformed, "  hoping  for  a  day  "  when  the  present  storm 
would  blow  over  and  the  old  state  of  things  would  be  re- 
stored. For  the  time-being  they  were  willing  to  bend  before 
the  blast,  not  realising  that  in  thus  weakly  acquiescing  out- 
wardly they  were  jeopardising  not  only  their  own  souls, 
but  those  of  the  flocks  committed  to  their  care.  Many 
would  not  accept  the  oaths  and  were  displaced;  still  more 
could  not  bend  their  consciences  to  take  them,  nor  dared 
they  face  the  consequences,  and  therefore  abandoned  their 
livings ;  but  instead  of  escaping  to  the  Continent,  remained 
secretly  in  England,  ministering  to  the  wants  of  the 
"  staunch  Romanists  "  by  stealth,  thereby  proving  a  serious 
1  Queen  Elizabeth,  ed.  1899,  p.  53. 


THE  NORTHERN  PROVINCE  299 

obstacle  to  the  progress  of  the  Reformation  and  a  cause  of 
much  concern  in  consequence  to  the  bishops  of  the  new 
establishment. 

Even  as  regards  the  conforming  Marian  priests,  the 
bishops  did  not  in  all  cases  feel  that  their  professions  were 
implicitly  to  be  trusted.  Not  all  men  can  at  once  adjust 
their  old  views  to  new  and  contradictory  propositions. 
Bishop  Scambler  of  Peterborough,  for  one,  had  learnt  to 
appreciate  this  factor  in  dealing  with  men,  and  in  parti- 
cular with  clergy,  and  had  come  to  realise  that  time  only 
could  bring  about  true  and  hearty  adherence,  that  patience 
was  needed,  that  considerable  latitude  would  have  to  be 
allowed,  and  that  many  things  would  have  to  be  overlooked 
and  winked  at.  He  expressed  this  to  Lord  Burghley  in 
after  years  in  the  following  pregnant  passage:  "  If  a  man 
may  be  won,  great  haste  is  not  to  be  required ;  if  a  man  in 
recanting  and  turning  to  the  truth  profess  at  the  first  no 
more  than  he  is  fully  persuaded  in,  and  speak  no  more  than 
he  believe,  he  is  liker  to  prove  a  good  member  of  Christ's 
Church,  than  some  other  that  speak  otherwise  and  better  to 
please,  in  haste." ' 

Many  of  these  outward  conformists  showed  how  little 
their  hearts  were  in  accord  with  their  mouths,  for  as 
Cardinal  Allen  wrote  to  Dr.  Vendeville,  on  16th  September, 
1578  (or  1580):  "  Not  only  laymen,  who  believed  the  Faith 
in  their  hearts  and  heard  Mass  at  home  when  they  could, 
frequented  the  schismatical  churches  and  ceremonies  (some 
even  communicating  in  them),  but  many  priests  said  Mass 
secretly  and  celebrated  the  heretical  offices  and  Supper  in 
public,  thus  becoming  partakers  often  on  the  same  day  (O 
horrible  impiety!)  of  the  chalice  of  the  Lord  and  the  chalice 
of  devils.  And  this  arose  from  the  false  persuasion  that  it 
was  enough  to  hold  the  Faith  interiorly  while  obeying  the 
Sovereign  in  externals,  especially  in  singing  psalms  and 
parts  of  Scripture  in  the  vulgar  tongue,  a  thing  which 
seemed  to  them  indifferent,  and,  in  persons  otherwise 
virtuous,  worthy  of  toleration  on  account  of  the  terrible 
1  Lansd.  MS.  21,  No.  2,  27th  March,  1575. 


300     TASK  OF  THE  ELIZABETHAN  BISHOPS 

rigour  of  the  laws."  '  Nicholas  Sander  also  bears  witness 
to  this  scandalous  and  dishonest  form  of  temporising.  He 
relates  that  Catholics  "  had  Mass  said  secretly  in  their  own 
houses  by  those  very  priests  who  in  church  publicly  cele- 
brated the  spurious  liturgy,  and  .  .  .  very  often  in  those 
disastrous  times  were  on  one  and  the  same  day  partakers 
of  the  table  of  our  Lord  and  of  the  table  of  devils,  that  is, 
of  the  blessed  Eucharist  and  the  Calvinistic  supper.  Yea, 
what  is  still  more  marvellous  and  more  sad,  sometimes  the 
priest  saying  Mass  at  home,  for  the  sake  of  those  Catholics 
whom  he  knew  to  be  desirous  of  them,  carried  about  him 
Hosts  consecrated  according  to  the  rite  of  the  Church,  with 
which  he  communicated  them  at  the  very  time  in  which  he 
was  giving  to  other  Catholics  more  careless  about  the  Faith 
the  bread  prepared  for  them  according  to  the  heretical  rite."  2 
These  weak  temporisers  were  not,  however,  the  men  who 
did,  or  were  likely  to  do,  much  lasting  good  amongst  the 
adherents  of  the  proscribed  Faith.  There  were  many  more 
who  had  abandoned  their  livings  rather  than  share  in  the 
new  schism,  and  who  yet  ministered  secretly  to  the  wants 
of  those  who  like  themselves  remained  staunch.  Writing 
on  ioth  August,  1577,  Cardinal  Allen  informed  Prior 
Maurice  Chauncy  of  "  many  of  the  elder  sort  of  priests, 
long  since  made  in  England,  coming  hither  [Douay]  to  see 
our  trade."  3  And  in  the  letter  to  Dr.  Vendeville,  already 
quoted  from,  he  says:  "  We  likewise  invited  from  England 
some  of  the  older  priests  who  had  been  ordained  many 
years  before,  and  were  labouring  in  the  Lord's  vineyard, 
but  were  insufficiently  instructed  for  the  necessities  of  the 
present  time  in  all  the  duties  of  religion  and  the  Church's 
censures." 4  At  the  close  of  the  sixteenth  century,  when 
memory  concerning  what  happened  at  the  time  of  Eliza- 
beth's accession  was  becoming  dim,  and  the  survivors  were 

1  Records  of  the  English  Catholics,  vol.  i,  Introd.,  p.  xxiii. 

2  Sander,  De  origine  ac  progressu  schismatis  Anglicani,  Lib.  iv, 
c.  iv.  Coloniae  Agrippinae,  1585.  Lewis's  translation,  Rise  and 
Growth  of  the  Anglican  Schism,  p.  267. 

3  Records,  ut  supra,  Introd.,  p.  xlvi.  4  Ibid.,  p.  xxxv. 


THE  NORTHERN  PROVINCE  301 

growing  fewer  in  number,  Fr.  William  Holt,  S.J.,  in  a  paper 
dated  1 596  drawn  up  to  show  how  the  Catholic  Faith  had 
been  maintained  in  England  during  more  than  a  generation 
of  persecution,  asserted  that  there  were  still  at  that  date 
between  forty  and  fifty  of  the  old  Marian  clergy  labouring 
on  the  mission ;  but  for  obvious  reasons  of  safety,  though 
he  may  have  known  their  names,  he  withheld  them.  This 
fact  is  not  without  its  bearings  on  the  controversy  as  to  the 
exact  number  of  conformists  and  deprived  clergy.  For  it 
may  be  noticed,  too,  that  in  Bridgewater's  list,  the  indi- 
viduals who  there  found  mention  mostly  lived  abroad ;  the 
workers  in  the  Lord's  vineyard  were  not  named,  because 
there  was  every  reason  to  conceal  their  identity.  But  now 
and  then  a  stray  reference  to  some  of  these  old  priests  is 
met  with.  For  example,  in  1593,  Robert  Abbot,  later  the 
famous  Archbishop  of  Canterbury,  wrote  a  book  against  "  a 
secret  cavilling  Papist  in  the  behalf  of  one  Paul  Spence, 
priest,  yet  living,  and  lately  prisoner  in  the  castle  at  Wor- 
cester." '  In  the  preface  to  this  brochure,  Abbot  says  that 
this  Paul  Spence  was  "  not  of  the  Seminary,  but  begotten 
in  his  order,  as  I  suppose,  in  the  time  of  Queen  Mary." 
Spence  does  not  find  a  place,  either  in  Bridgewater's  or 
Mr.  Gee's  lists.  Again,  as  Father  Knox  observes : 2  "  For  the 
first  sixteen  years  of  the  schism,  from  1558  to  1574,  it  [the 
maintenance  of  the  Faith]  was  due  to  the  priests,  some 
regular,  but  mostly  secular,  ordained  in  the  previous  reigns, 
and  to  them  alone  ...  a  large  number,  especially  of  the 
parochial  clergy,  remained  steadfast  at  their  posts.  .  .  . 
Such  a  one,  for  example,  was  the  Rev.  John  Peel,  of  whom 
the  Diary  records  on  the  occasion  of  a  visit  which  he  paid 
to  Douay  in  May,  1576,  that  'he  laboured  for  sixteen 
years  in  England  at  the  peril  of  his  life,  reconciling  to  the 
Catholic  Faith  those  who  had  gone  astray,  and  animating 
others  to  perseverance.' " 3  The  testimony  of  Dr.  Hum- 
phrey Ely,  of  St.  John's  College,  Oxford,  an  exile  for  the 
Faith,  is  also  requisitioned  by  Father  Knox:  "The  second 

1  Cf.  Lansd.  MS.  945,  f.  184''. 

-  Records,  ut  supra,  Introd.,  p.  lxi.  3  P.  104. 


302     TASK  OF  THE  ELIZABETHAN  BISHOPS 

praise,  of  planting  and  teaching  this  better  opinion,  be- 
longeth  as  well  to  many  ancient  priests  of  Queen  Mary's 
days  that  stood  firm  and  stable  in  their  Faith,  and  drew 
daily  some  out  of  the  mire  of  schism  by  preaching  and 
teaching;  whereof  I  myself  am  a  witness,  having  known 
many  that  were  reconciled  by  them  many  a  year  before 
any  religious,  either  from  beyond  the  sea  or  at  home, 
brought  this  doctrine."  *  Allen,  in  the  letter  to  Vendeville 
already  quoted  from,  writes  to  the  same  effect:  "  We  under- 
stood that  not  only  our  own  priests,  of  whom  we  had  but 
few  in  the  beginning,  but  others  also  who  were  ordained  in 
England  formerly  in  the  Catholic  times,  had  by  the  secret 
administration  of  the  Sacraments  and  by  their  exhortations 
confirmed  many  in  the  Faith,  and  brought  back  some  who 
had  gone  wrong."  Another  testimony  to  the  secret  labours 
of  these  Marian  priests  is  to  be  found  in  Campion's  letter 
to  the  General  of  the  Jesuits,  dated  November,  1580, 
wherein  he  acknowledges  that  "for  the  ministration  whereof 
[i.e.,  the  Sacraments]  we  are  ever  well  assisted  by  priests 
whom  we  find  in  every  place  \iibique~\,  whereby  both  the 
people  is  well  served,  and  we  much  eased  of  our  charge."  2 
At  the  date  of  writing,  there  were  of  course  several 
seminary  priests  from  Douay  and  Rome  at  work  in  Eng- 
land; but  it  is  significant  that  Campion,  who  traversed 
large  tracts  of  England  before  his  capture,  testifies  to  hav- 
ing come  across  priests  ubique  "in  every  place."  After 
making  due  allowance  for  the  possible  exaggeration  con- 
tained in  so  general  an  expression,  the  numbers  cannot  but 
have  been  considerable — many  more,  in  fact,  than  the 
seminaries  could  at  that  early  period  of  their  activities 
account  for.  If,  then,  forty  or  fifty  of  the  three  hundred  and 
fifty  priests  labouring  on  the  English  mission  at  the  end  of 
the  century  were,  according  to  Fr.  Holt's  testimony,  of  the 
Marian  clergy,  their  number  would  have  been  considerably 
greater  when  Campion  wrote,  and  would   evidently  have 

1  Records,  etc.,  p.  lxii.    Dr.  Humphrey  Ely,  Certain  Brief  Notes, 
etc.,  p.  67. 

2  Simpson,  Life  of  Campion,  ed.  1896,  p.  248. 


THE  NORTHERN  PROVINCE  303 

been  larger  still  during  the  first  ten  or  twelve  years  of  the 
schism,  before  death  had  begun  to  thin  their  ranks. 

It  may  be  objected  that  such  statements  are  too  general, 
and  that  the  inferences  drawn  from  them  are  therefore 
hardly  warranted  ;  but,  on  the  other  hand,  it  must  be  borne 
in  mind  that  a  very  important  element  of  success  in  the 
dangerous  work  done  by  the  Marian  priests  lay  in  the 
secrecy  with  which  they  surrounded  their  existence  or 
whereabouts.  A  priest  who  had  abandoned,  or  been  de- 
prived of,  his  living  because  he  refused  to  accept  the  parlia- 
mentary religion  was  hardly  going  to  let  it  be  publicly 
known  where  he  lived,  or  that  he  was  still  fulfilling  the 
functions  of  his  priesthood,  more  especially  as  the  penal 
enactments  of  the  law  made  the  punishment  so  severe  not 
only  for  him  but  also  for  those  who  availed  themselves  of 
his  ministrations.1  He  would  naturally,  therefore,  have 
taken  every  precaution  against  being  brought  under  official 
notice.  This  may  serve,  too,  to  explain  why  it  is  rare  to 
identify  any  of  the  old  clergy  amongst  the  early  lists  of 
recusants  in  prison.  The  majority  of  the  priests  so  labour- 
ing in  England  were  doubtless  never  caught.  But  even 
with  all  these  chances  against  any  record  of  their  work  and 
persons  existing  or  surviving,  evidence  is  not  wholly  want- 
ing to  show  how  considerable  their  number  must  have  been. 
Thus  a  catalogue  of  ninety-nine  Catholics  confined  in 
various  prisons  in  London  and  certain  other  parts  of  Eng- 
land in  1 579  is  preserved  in  Lansd.  MS.  28,  No.  97.  The  use 
of" superintendens"  to  designate  certain  Protestantfbishop- 
custodians  shows  that  the  list  was  drawn  up  by  a  Catholic. 
It  contains  the  names  of  one  archbishop  (Richard  Creagh, 
of  Armagh),  one  bishop  (Thomas  Watson,  late  of  Lincoln), 
one  abbot  (Feckenham),  described  as  "  venerabilis  Abbas 
Westmonasteriensis,"  and  two  of  his  monks,  together  with 
twenty-six  of  the  secular  clergy;  also  twenty-one  "  nobiles  " 
or  men  of  gentle  birth,  six  "  laics,"  eight  women,  a  doctor 
of  laws,  a  master  of  arts,  and  five  "  schoolmasters,"  as  also 
twenty-six  of  no  designation,  thus  very  possibly  hiding  the 
1  Cf.  Statutes  of  the  Realm,  5  Eliz.,  c.  I. 


304     TASK  OF  THE  ELIZABETHAN  BISHOPS 

identity  of  some  more  priests  who  had  escaped  the  de- 
tection of  their  sacred  character.  Of  the  priests,  four, 
possibly  a  fifth,  were  seminarists;  the  rest,  as  might  be 
gathered  from  the  ages  appended  to  their  names  (though 
this  is  not  in  itself  conclusive  proof),  to  say  nothing  of 
the  negative  testimony  of  the  College  Diaries,  where  their 
names  do  not  occur,  were  of  Marian  or  even  pre-Marian 
ordination. 

Jewel,  writing  to  Peter  Martyr  on  ist  August,  1559,  tells 
him  that  "the  Mass  priests  absent  themselves  altogether 
from  public  worship,  as  if  it  were  the  greatest  impiety  to 
have  anything  in  common  with  the  people  of  God."  *  And 
three  months  later  he  tells  the  same  correspondent  that  "  if 
inveterate  obstinacy  was  found  anywhere,  it  was  altogether 
amongst  the  priests."2  After  21st  December,  1559,  Cox 
told  Peter  Martyr  that  the  "  popish  priests  "  were  "  daily 
relinquishing  their  ministry,  lest,  as  they  say,  they  should 
be  compelled  to  give  their  sanction  to  heresies." 3 

The  Duke  of  Norfolk,  writing  to  Cecil  from  Durham, 
10th  January,  1559-60,  says  in  a  postscript,  that  he  finds 
"  this  town  and  country  hereabouts  far  out  of  order  in 
matters  of  religion ;  and  the  altars  standing  still  in  the 
churches  contrary  to  the  Queen's  Majesty's  proceedings."  l 
Robert  Home,  the  restored  Edwardine  Dean  of  that 
northern  Church,  soon  to  become  Bishop  of  Winchester, 
wrote  to  complain  of  the  religious  state  of  that  part  of  the 
country,  and  after  reporting  his  conviction  that  "  the  face 
of  the  Church  in  these  parts  is  so  blemished  with  ignorance 
and  licentious  living,"  goes  on  to  say  that  "  there  is  such 
continuance  in  superstitious  behaviour,  contrary  to  the 
order  taken  for  religion,  such  contempt  and  neglecting  of 
God's  service  at  the  times  and  places  appointed,  and  such 
uncleanness  through  fleshly  life,  yea,  such  horrible  incests 

1  1  Zur.,  No.  16. 

2  Ibid.,  No.  19,  2nd  November,  1559. 

3  Ibid.,  No.  28,  but  signed,  "  Richard  Cox,  Bishop  of  Ely,"  to  which 
See  he  was  consecrated  on  21st  December,  1559. 

4  Haynes,  Hatfield  Papers,  p.  222. 


DURHAM  305 

as  hath  not  been  heard  of  among  the  heathen."  '  The  sug- 
gested remedy  is  of  course  the  introduction  of  conforming 
prebendaries  in  place  of  three  or  four  Catholic  ones  who 
had  already  refused,  or  were  likely  soon  to  refuse  the  oaths. 
Dean  Home,  on  13th  November,  1 560,  bewailed  the  dearth 
of  clergy,  writing  to  Cecil  specifically  about  the  needs  of 
Berwick :  "  I  am  right  sorry  that  the  ministry  is  so  barren 
and  destitute  of  a  sufficiency  of  worthy  men  to  satisfy  the 
want  there  and  in  other  places  also."  a  His  interest  in  ec- 
clesiastical reform  was  henceforth  to  be  transferred  to  the 
southern  parts  of  England  where  we  shall  meet  with  him 
again  as  Bishop  of  Winchester.  But  James  Pilkington  the 
first  reformer  Bishop  of  Durham  has  much  to  say  on 
similar  topics.  His  first  letter  to  Cecil  on  20th  May,  1561,3 
is  not  worth  quoting;  but  on  2nd  August,  1561,  he  reports 
that  "  according  to  my  commission,  also,  I  administered  the 
oath  unto  the  Justices  of  the  Peace,  who  all  received  it  will- 
ingly that  were  present,  except  Sergeant  Meynell,  who  is 
one  of  the  Council  at  York,  and  has  all  offices  here  under 
me  and  has  ruled  this  country  alone  above  20  years  with 
the  evil  report  of  all  men.  He  would  neither  take  the  oath 
for  Justices  of  the  Peace,  nor  for  the  Queen's  Supremacy,  but 
thought  he  had  wrong  to  have  it  proffered  him,  because  he 
said  that  none  of  his  calling  had  taken  it.  He  never  took  any 

oath  since  the  Queen  began  her  reign RobertLawson  also 

would  take  the  oath  of  Justice,but  not  for  the  Queen.  Robert 
Tempest,  being  Sheriff  and  therefore  no  Justice,  would  make 
no  full  answer;  but  it  is  thought  he  will  deny  for  the 
Queen.  Michael  Wainsford  absented  himself  and  yet  pro- 
mised to  have  been  there ;  but  few  thinks  he  will  acknow- 
ledge the  Queen's  Highness."4  On  13th  October  of  the 
same  year,  Pilkington  thus  disburthened  himself  to  Cecil : 
"  Paulus  cum  bestiis pugnavit  Ephesi:  ego  hie  imprimis  habeo 
iij  belluas ;  utinam  cum  Paulo  vincam.    The  more  I  try  the 

1  P.R.O.  Dom.Eliz.,  xi,  No.  16,1 8th  February,  1559-60.  Cf.  also  Pilk- 
ington to  Cecil,  2nd  August,  1561  ;  P.R.O.,  Borders,  Eliz.,  IV,  No.  295. 
-  Ibid.,  XIV,  No.  45.  3  Ibid.,  Add.  XI,  No.  13. 

1  P.R.O.,  Borders,  Eliz.,  IV,  No.  295. 
X 


306     TASK  OF  THE  ELIZABETHAN  BISHOPS 

more  griefs  I  find  ...  If  it  please  your  honour  to  under- 
stand the  state  of  the  country,  he  [Mr.  Fleetwood]  can  cer- 
tify you  at  full ;  in  writing,  possible  it  were  I  should  touch 
those  things  which  your  honour  would  not  most  gladly 
understand.  But  in  my  judgment  this  I  see,  that  here  needs 
rather  authority  and  power  to  be  given  than  taken  away. 
They  understand  the  taking  away  of  the  Bishop's  living, 
whereby  his  power  is  the  less,  and  so  less  is  he  regarded. 
.  .  .  The  worshipful  of  the  shire  is  few  and  of  small  power, 
the  people  rude  and  heady,  and  by  these  occasions  more 
bold.  I  cannot  find  ten  able  Justices  of  Peace  of  wisdom 
and  authority  of  neither  religion.  ...  If  Mr.  Meynell  and 
other  refusing  the  oath  of  their  allegiance  may  be  on  the 
Council  in  authority  still,  and  have  their  doings  for  good,  it 
will  encourage  others  to  the  like  or  worse  ...  I  cannot 
tell  whether  men  marvel  more  to  see  a  poor  or  preaching 
Bishop  here;  and  the  outward  pomp  and  power  taken  away 
makes  them  much  bolder."  L  A  month  later,  on  14th  Nov- 
ember, he  reverted  to  these  troubles,  thus:  "  For  the  nature 
of  the  people,  I  would  not  have  thought  there  had  been  so 
froward  a  generation  in  this  realm.  I  do  not  see  that  they 
will  be  ruled  without  a  great  power,  and  of  him  whom  they 
fear.  They  see  how  small  the  Bishop's  power  is,  and  there- 
fore they  contemn  it.  I  am  grown  into  such  displeasure 
with  them,  part  for  religion  and  part  for  ministering  the 
oath  of  the  Queen's  Superiority,  that  I  know  not  whether 
they  like  me  worse,  or  I  them ;  so  great  dissembling,  so 
poisonful  tongues  and  malicious  minds  I  have  not  seen." 2 
He  then  complained  of  the  conduct  of  various  Justices  of 
Peace,  who,  notwithstanding  they  had  refused  the  oaths,  yet 
remained  in  possession  of  posts  of  trust ;  his  own  officers 
were  underpaid,  or  the  posts  were  vacant  for  want  of  proper 
pay.  "  The  troubles  be  so  great,"  he  says,  "  the  complaints 
so  many,  the  rude  importunity  of  the  people  so  incredible, 
my  experience  so  unable  to  determine  them,  that  the  griefs 
and  cares  of  them,  where  I  had  a  little  wit  at  my  coming, 
now  have  left  me  almost  none.  .  .  .  The  Queen  does  not 
1  P.R.O.  Dom.  Eliz.,  xx,  No.  5.  2  Ibid.,  XX,  No.  25. 


. 


DURHAM  307 


take  away  so  fast  but  everyone  here  goes  about  to  encroach 
on  me  and  make  a  hand  for  themselves  thinking  all  will 
away,  and  I  see  no  remedy  but  I  must  either  try  the  law 
with  divers  of  the  mightiest,  or  else  lose  a  great  portion  of 
my  right,  howsoever  it  will  prove  in  the  end ;  and  surely  the 
law  here  is  ended  as  a  many  is  friended."  A  lengthy  post- 
script informs  Cecil  that  "  the  last  day  of  my  visitation,  a 
young  priest  being  called  with  his  churchwardens  to  take 
his  oath  as  the  rest,  .  .  .  refused  to  swear  because  he  said 
those  Injunctions  hang  on  a  further  authority,  which  he 
could  not  allow.  This  he  spake  openly  afore  all  the  people 
...  he  said  he  thought  that  neither  temporal  man  nor 
woman  could  have  power  in  spiritual  matters  but  only 
the  Pope  of  Rome.  This  boldness  the  people  grow  into 
because  they  see  that  such  as  refuse  to  acknowledge  their 
due  allegiance,  escape  not  only  punishment,  but  are  had  in 
authority  and  estimation."  Dean  Whittingham,  writing  to 
Cecil  on  19th  December,  1563,  tells  him  that  "the  people 
in  the  country  are  very  docile  and  willing  to  hear  God's 
word,"  but  that  in  Durham  itself  they  were  "  very  stiff,  not- 
withstanding they  be  handled  with  all  lenity  and  gentle- 
ness: the  best  hope  I  have  that  now  of  late  they  begin  to 
resort  more  diligently  to  the  sermons  and  service." '  The 
value  of  his  hopes,  and  the  sincerity  of  their  supposed  ac- 
quiescence is  to  be  gauged  only  by  their  conduct  in  1569. 
Moreover,  a  letter  in  the  Parker  Correspondence?  ascribed 
to  the  year  1 564,  written  by  Pilkington  to  the  Archbishop, 
shows  that,  in  the  North,  Catholics  still  had  it  very  much 
their  own  way.  He  is  calling  Parker's  attention  to  things 
amiss  in  archiepiscopal  "  peculiars  "  situated  in  Lancashire 
and  adjacent  parts.  "  It  is  too  lamentable  to  see  and  hear 
how  negligently  they  say  any  service  there,  and  how  seldom 
.  .  .  Your  cures,  all  except  Rochdale,  be  as  far  out  of  order 
as  the  worst  in  all  the  country.  The  old  vicar  of  Blackburn, 
Roger  Linney,  resigned  for  a  pension,  and  now  Whalley 
has  as  evil  a  vicar  as  the  worst,  and  there  is  one  come  thither 
that  has  been  deprived,  and  changes  his  name,  and  now 
1  Lansd.  MS.  7,  No.  12.  2  P.  221,  No.  168. 


308     TASK  OF  THE  ELIZABETHAN  BISHOPS 

teaches  school  there,  of  evil  to  make  them  worse".  The 
Rebellion  of  the  North  in  1569  tells  its  own  tale  as  regards 
the  true  sentiments  of  Durham  in  religious  matters,  and 
Pilkington  had  to  fly  south  with  his  wife  and  daughters  for 
their  lives.  At  the  close  of  the  short  rebellion  he  had  serious 
misgivings  about  returning,  as  well  he  might,  seeing  how 
obnoxious  he  was  to  the  Northerners,  as  a  married  prelate. 
He  says :  "  The  country  is  in  great  misery  .  .  .  the  number 
of  offenders  is  so  great,  that  few  innocent  are  left  to  try 
the  guilty.  .  .  .  What  comfort  it  is  to  go  now  into  that 
country,  for  him  that  would  live  quietly,  your  wisdom  can 
easily  judge!  "  1  His  fears  were  not  without  foundation,  and 
in  1 571  he  twice  wrote  to  Cecil,  pointing  out  how  the  families 
of  the  chief  rebels  still  set  him  at  defiance,  not  only  in 
matters  of  religion,  but  by  harbouring  and  aiding  proscribed 
persons.2 

Bishop  Pilkington  died  in  1576,  and  Barnes  was  brought 
from  Carlisle  in  the  following  year  to  replace  him.  He  had 
evidently  had  an  eye  to  the  reversionary  possibilities  of 
this  neighbouring  and  still  rich  See,  for  a  very  interesting 
letter  of  his  is  extant,3  and  is  a  good  example  of  the  de- 
pendence of  the  bishops  on  the  all-powerful  minister,  and 
of  the  art  of  keeping  oneself  en  evidence  with  a  view  to 
securing  something  suitable  or  desirable.  He  says  that  he 
has  nothing  but  love  and  service  to  offer,  being  so  poor ; 
"  yet  since  one  can  have  no  more  of  the  cat  than  the  skin, 
accept  the  same  my  good  Lord,  donee  uberiora  Deus,"  and 
then  excuses  himself  from  any  self-seeking.  One  of  the 
first  duties  that  fell  to  him  in  his  new  diocese  was  to 
make  the  return  of  recusants  asked  for  by  the  Council  in 
the  autumn  of  1 577,  together  with  a  valuation  of  their  lands 
and  goods.  In  county  Durham  eight  are  named,  mostly 
poor,  and  evidently  as  a  result  of  the  fines  levied  after  the 
Rising,  for  they  had  all  been  connected  with  it.  No  informa- 

1  Lansd.  MS.  12,  No.  29,  4th  January,  1569-70. 

2  P.R.O.  Dom.  Eliz.,  IX,  Nos.  41  and  99,  23rd  April  and  15th 
October,  1571. 

3  Lansd.  MS.  20,  No.  66,  28th  October,  1575. 


DURHAM  309 

tion  was  given  as  to  Northumberland,  as  none  had  come  to 
hand  at  the  time  of  writing.1  Shortly  after  his  transfer  to 
Durham,  he  reported  progress.  "  My  travail  is  but  simple, 
yet  (I  praise  God)  it  hath  sorted  very  good  and  prosperous 
success  and  effect,  ad  miraculum  usque  in  this  short  space. 
And  since  my  last  letters  I  have  sent  throughout  North- 
umberland, and  found  such  and  so  humble  obedience  and 
such  conformity  unto  all  good  orders  even  of  the  wildest 
of  those  people,  as  (truly  and  before  God)  I  think  better 
and  more  plausible  cannot  be  found  {saltern  ad  oculuni)  .  .  . 
I  doubt  not  but  that  within  this  half  year,  your  good  Lord- 
ship shall  see  a  wonderful  reformation  there,  for  .  .  .  those 
that  were  of  late  rebels  .  .  .  that  are  noted  to  talk  unseemly 
...  in  private  assemblies,  yet  openly  they  all  profess  an 
obedience;  and  now,  within  all  Northumberland  I  cannot 
find  one  person  that  wilfully  will  refuse  to  come  to  the 
church  and  communicate  (a  few  women  excepted).  For  I 
have  driven  out  of  that  country  the  reconciling  priests  and 
Massers,  whereof  there  was  store ;  they  are  now  gone  into 
Lancashire  and  Yorkshire,  but  we  are  rid  of  them;  and 
surely  such  and  so  full  presentments  are  daily  given  in  of 
all  defaults  there,  as  I  think  they  leave  almost  no  little 
trifle  untouched,  which  doth  much  confirm  my  hope  of 
speedy  good  reformation  of  that  country ;  yet  in  the  mean 
time  .  .  .  these  people  are  far  more  pliable  to  all  good 
order  than  these  stubborn  churlish  people  of  the  county  of 
Durham  and  their  neighbours  of  Richmondshire  who  show 
but  (as  the  proverb  is)  Jack-of-rapes  charity,  in  their  hearts 
and  doings:  as  hard,  stubborn  and  rebellious  as  ever  they 
were.  I  grant  that  .  .  .  the  lives  of  these  people  (as  their 
country  is)  are  savage;  but  truly  such  haste  to  amend 
(though  it  be  for  some  fear),  as  is  marvellous ;  and  yet  none 
extremity  showed  to  any,  otherwise  than  by  threatenings, 
which  hath  wrought  Pannicum  timorem  in  their  minds,  and 
in  the  clergy  a  good  readiness  to  apply  their  travails  to 
their  callings;  only  that  Augiae  stabulum,  the  church  of 
Durham,  excepted,  whose  stink  is  grievous  in  the  nose  of 
1  P.R.O.  Dom.  Add.  Eliz.,  xxv,  No.  42,  24th  October,  1577. 


310    TASK  OF  THE  ELIZABETHAN  BISHOPS 

God  and  of  men ;  and  which  to  purge  far  passeth  Hercules1 
labours.  I  have  an  external  show  of  some  dutiful  obedience, 
but  their  dealings  underhand  are  nothing  less." l  This  in- 
teresting letter  touches  on  many  other  topics,  such  as 
Barnes's  attitude  towards  the  Archbishop  of  Canterbury, 
Dr.  Grindal,  then  under  sentence  of  sequestration  for 
opposing  the  Queen's  will  as  to  the  suppression  of  prophesy- 
ing, etc. ;  but  these  subjects  do  not  here  concern  us.  What 
is  of  immediate  interest,  however,  is  to  read  between  the 
lines  that  the  very  submission  of  the  Northerners  which  he 
extols,  was,  as  he  himself  suspected,  saltern  adoculum:  it  was 
hollow,  insincere,  a  mere  pretext  to  avoid  any  further 
trouble,  an  outward  show  of  comformity  to  prevent 
"  threatenings  "  from  being  translated  into  "  show  of  ex- 
tremity." It  is  impossible  to  suppose  that  he  deluded  him- 
self into  the  belief  that  this  sort  of  "  towardness  "  was  of 
the  slightest  value:  it  is  still  less  credible  that  he  could 
impose  on  so  astute  a  man  as  was  Lord  Burghley:  what 
his  object  could  have  been,  therefore,  in  composing  so 
extraordinary  an  epistle  it  is  difficult  to  fathom,  unless, 
indeed,  extracts  artfully  arranged  might  please  the  Queen. 
She,  too,  was  far  too  shrewd  to  be  deceived,  did  she  ever 
see  the  entire  letter. 

The  neighbouring  Bishop  of  Carlisle  had  to  deal  with  a 
people  of  similar  temperament  to  those  who  so  troubled 
Pilkington.  John  Best  was  consecrated  to  that  See  on  2nd 
March,  1 560-1,  and,  soon  after,  he  made  a  visitation  of  his 
diocese.  His  report  thereon  to  Cecil  would  make  but  sorry 
reading  were  it  not  necessary  to  allow  a  certain  discount 
due  to  the  prejudices  of  the  reformer.  Assuring  Cecil  that 
"  my  letters,  the  express  image  of  my  faithful  heart  .  .  . 
declaring  to  you  the  state  of  the  country,  may  be  unto 
your  wisdom  as  it  were  a  mean  to  redress  things  amiss,"  he 
proceeds  to  say  that  "  the  common  people  who  much  re- 
joiced, affirmed  they  had  been  deceived,"  after  hearing  him 
expound  the  new  doctrines ;  "  the  gentlemen  of  the  country- 
received  me  in  every  place  with  much  civility,"  which 
1  Lansd.  MS.  25,  No.  78,  nth  February,  1577-8. 


CARLISLE  311 

evidently  to  some  extent  deluded  the  Bishop  for  a  time  at 
least,  as  to  the  real  sentiments  of  the  tract  over  which  he 
ruled;  but  "the  priests  are  wicked  imps  of  Antichrist  and 
for  the  most  part  very  ignorant  and  stubborn,  past  measure 
false  and  subtle;  only  fear  maketh  them  obedient.  Only 
three  absented  themselves  in  my  visitation  and  fled  because 
they  would  not  subscribe,  of  the  which  two  belong  to  my 
Lord  Dacres,  and  one  to  the  Earl  of  Cumberland,  unto 
which  I  have  assigned  days  [to  appear]  under  danger  of 
deprivation.  About  twelve  or  thirteen  churches  in  Gilsland 
all  under  my  Lord  Dacre  do  not  appear,  but  bearing  them- 
selves upon  my  Lord  refuse  to  come  in ;  and  at  Stapleton 
and  sundry  of  the  other  have  yet  Mass  openly,  at  whom  my 
Lord  and  his  officers  wink,  and  although  they  stand  excom- 
municate I  do  not  further  meddle  with  them  until  I  have 
some  aid  from  my  Lord  President  and  the  Council  in  the 
North  lest  I  might  trouble  the  country  with  those  that  are 
in  a  manner  desperate." 1  The  next  letter  we  have  of  his, 
written  14th  January,  1561-2,  gives  ample  reason  for  the  dis- 
cretion for  which  he  took  such  credit  to  himself;  and  though 
he  finds  fault  with  Lord  Dacre  of  Gilsland  and  the  Earl  of 
Westmoreland,  he  does  not  venture  to  name  those  powerful 
noblemen,  but  contents  himself  with  hints  such  as  Cecil 
would  be  sure  to  understand,  leaving  him  to  gather  the 
rest,  if  he  will  but  "  talk  secretly  with  the  bearer  hereof." 
The  letter,  however,  contains  information  explicit  enough 
to  show  us  what  men  were  thinking  about.  "  Here  is  such 
rumours,  tales  and  lies  secretly  blown  abroad,  partly  by 
writings  in  French,  partly  by  evil-disposed  Papists,  secretly 
whispered  in  corners,  that  every  day  men  look  for  a  change 
and  prepare  for  the  same.  The  people  desirous  of  the  same 
do  in  manner  openly  say  and  do  what  they  will  concerning 
religion  and  other  matters  right  perilous,  without  check  or 
punishment.  The  rulers  and  Justices  of  Peace  wink  at  all 
things  and  look  through  the  fingers ;  for  my  exhortation 
to  have  such  punished  I  have  had  privy  displeasure  .  .  . 
for  punishing  and  depriving  of  certain  evil  men  which 
'  P.R.O.  Dom.  Eliz.,  xvm,  No.  21,  19th  July,  1561. 


312     TASK  OF  THE  ELIZABETHAN  BISHOPS 

neither  would  do  their  office  according  to  the  good  laws  of 
this  realm,  neither  acknowledge  the  Queen's  Majesty's 
Supremacy,  neither  yet  obey  me  as  Ordinary.  Such  men  as 
these  are  not  only  supported  and  borne  withal,  but  also 
had  in  place  of  councillors  and  brought  into  open  place, 
whereby  those  of  evil  religion  are  encouraged  to  be  stub- 
born, and  they  which  embrace  the  true  doctrine  defaced 
and  discouraged.  And  such  are  kept  still  in  household, 
though  contrary  commandment  was  given  .  .  .  and  I  for 
my  part  dare  not  say  it  is  wrong,  nor  any  other  that  I 
know.  For  though  I  am  bold  to  utter  unto  you  such  matter, 
whose  secrecy  and  wisdom  I  have  great  trust  in,  yet  here  I 
open  no  such  things  to  any  man,  well  pondering  the  danger 
thereof  ...  so  long  as  the  high  authority  is  in  his  hands 
that  now  hath  it,  God's  glorious  gospel  cannot  take  place 
here,  for  not  even  those  that  thoroughly  favour  it  dare  be 
known  thereof  unto  him,  for  fear  of  a  shrewd  turn."  *  Writ- 
ing to  Cecil  on  25th  April,  1563,  he  had  grievous  complaints 
to  make  about  the  condition  of  things  at  his  Cathedral 
Church,  which  was  going  to  decay;  the  woods  "almost 
destroyed ;  a  great  part  of  the  livings  under  colour  conveyed 
to  their  {i.e.,  the  prebendaries']  kinsmen ;  themselves  taking 
the  profits,  and  that  for  three  or  four  score  years,  their 
statutes  appointing  but  only  twenty-one.  Where  for  repara- 
tions is  allowed  yearly  £100,  there  is  nothing  done.  And 
where  £30  is  allowed  for  the  poor  and  mending  highways, 
almost  as  little  is  done;  no  residence  kept;  no  accounts; 
the  prebendaries  turning  all  to  their  own  gain ;  which,  when 
I  go  about  to  reform  in  my  visitation,  can  take  no  place 
because  they  are  confederate  together  and  the  losses  their 
own.  Three  of  them  are  unlearned,  and  the  fourth  unzeal- 
ous.  Briefly,  the  city  is  decayed  by  them,  and  God's  truth 
slandered." 2  Bishop  Best  wrote  in  the  same  sense  to  Grindal, 
his  brother  of  London,  who  passed  on  the  information 
to  Cecil  with  the  following  gloss  of  his  own :  "  All  his  pre- 
bendaries (Sewell  only  excepted,  who  is  discredited  by 
reason  of  his  inconstancy),  are  ignorant  priests,  or  old  un- 
1  P.R.O.  Dom.  Eliz.,  xxi,  No.  13.  2  Lansd.  MS.  6,  No.  49. 


CARLISLE  313 

learned  monks."  l  Grindal,  the  Bishop  of  London,  a  native 
of  Cowpland  in  this  diocese,  assured  Cecil  that  "  for  regard 
to  that  little  angle"  it  was  "the  ignorantest  part  in  religion 
...  of  any  one  part  of  this  realm,  to  my  knowledge."  a 
Another  time  he  told  Cecil  that  "  there  be  marvellous 
practices  to  deface  [John  Best,  the  Bishop]  in  my  lawless 
country;  and,  by  him,  the  cause."3  Strype,  commenting 
on  this  letter,4  says  that  that  country  was  "replenished  with 
Papists  and  such  like."  That  the  general  causes  of  complaint 
did  not  right  themselves  is  proved  not  only  by  the  events 
accompanying  the  Rising  in  the  North  in  1569,  but  also 
by  a  letter  written  to  Cecil  shortly  before  the  Bishop's  death, 
wherein  he  refers  sorrowfully  to  the  "  many  hollow  hearts 
of  our  people  here  touching  their  obedience  unto  the  Queen's 
Highness;  and  but  a  small  number  (in  mine  opinion)  of 
just  and  true  servitors  in  these  parts." ' 

Best  died  on  22nd  May,  1570,  and  his  place  at  Carlisle 
was  taken  by  Richard  Barnes,  Bishop  of  Nottingham  and 
Suffragan  of  York,  who  was  translated  to  Carlisle  in  June, 
1570.  Three  days  after  Best's  death,  Sir  Thomas  Gargrave 
wrote  to  Cecil  asking  him  to  prefer  Barnes  to  the  vacancy. 
"  He  is  in  mine  opinion  a  very  meet  man  for  the  place,  both 
for  his  sound  doctrine,  his  stoutness,  etc."  G  Though  first  ap- 
pearances are  so  often  deceptive,  Bishop  Barnes  did  not  hesi- 
tate to  pen  a  glowing  account  of  his  new  charges,  very  unlike 
the  estimate  formed  of  the  same  people  by  his  predecessor, 
but  for  which  the  reader  is  in  some  measure  prepared  by 
his  subsequent  letter  as  Bishop  of  Durham  already  cited, 
showing  that  his  wish  moulded  his  thought  and  guided  his 
pen,  before  more  intimate  knowledge  sobered  his  judgments 
in  either  case.   To  Cecil,  then,  he  wrote  as  follows  on  27th 

1  Lansd.  MS.  6,  No.  86,  27th  December,  1563. 

3  Ibid.,  6,  No.  51,  17th  May,  1563. 

3  Ibid.,  7,  No.  57,  21st  January,  1563-4. 

1  Life  of  Grindal,  p.  126. 

5  P.R.O.  Dom.  Eliz.,  Add.,  xvn,  No.  36,  20th  January,  1569-70. 

c  Ibid.,  xviii,  No.  58,  25th  May,  1570.  N.B.— "  Stoutness5'  in  the 
original  becomes  "holiness"  in  the  abstract  in  the  Calendar! 


314     TASK  OF  THE  ELIZABETHAN  BISHOPS 

October,  1570:  "I  am  for  the  time  settled  in  my  charge, 
where  I  doubt  not  to  work  great  good  to  this  people  and 
good  service  to  the  Queen  my  gracious  Lady ;  for  of  a  truth 
I  never  came  in  place  in  this  land  where  more  attentive 
ear  was  given  to  the  Word  than  here;  and  in  time  I  trust 
good  effect  will  grow  thereupon.  ...  I  have  for  these  ten 
years  been  exercised  in  these  north  parts,  and  know  the 
people's  disposition  right  well,  as  I  persuade  myself.  And  to 
say  the  truth,  I  find  these  Cumberland  and  Westmoreland 
commonalty  far  more  conformable,  pliable  and  tractable  in 
all  matters  of  religion  than  ever  I  found  in  the  better  sort  in 
Yorkshire.  All  will  most  quietly  and  reverently  hear,  none 
will  reclaim  by  word  nor  fear  by  deed  (saving  the  Lowland 
men,  and  certain  gentlemen),  but  attentively  and  gladly 
seem  to  hear  and  yield  to  the  truth,  so  that  I  seem  to 
promise  great  good  success  (if  God  so  will),  in  this  so  rude 
a  country;  and  yet  not  by  far  so  rude  as  in  many  places 
the  Southern  people  be,  nor  so  far  from  God's  religion  as 
they  have  been  thought."  '  He  appended  to  this  letter  a 
long  list  of  gentry  to  many  of  whose  names  he  attached 
such  pithy  but  violent  descriptions  as"sanguinarius  Papista" 
etc.;  somewhat  belying  his  roseate  estimate  of  the  two 
north-westerly  counties ;  but  he  is  not  so  hopeful  of  Lanca- 
shire, where  "  more  great  assemblies  are  daily  than  were 
fit;  on  all  hands  the  people  fall  from  religion,  revolt  to 
Popery,  refuse  to  come  at  church ;  the  wicked  popish  priests 
reconcile  them  to  the  Church  of  Rome,  and  cause  them  to 
abjure  this  (Christ's  religion);  and  that  openly  and  un- 
checked. Since  Felton  set  up  the  excommunication,  in 
some  houses  of  great  men  (you  know  whom  I  mean),  no 
service  hath  been  said  in  the  English  tongue,  but  Browne 
and  other  traitorous  priests  openly  received,  entertained, 
and  maintained  .  .  .  neither  durst  I  have  done  this  much 
[i.e.,  have  given  the  above  information]  but  that  I  presume 
and  am  assured  of  your  honour's  good  affection  to  me,  and 
thereupon  persuade  myself  that  this  advertisement  shall 
not  tend  to  my  hurt."  '  Much  the  same  report  was  sent  by 
1  P.R.O.  Dom.  Eliz.,  LXXiv,  No.  22.  2  Ibid. 


CHESTER  315 

Bishop  Barnes  to  the  Earl  of  Sussex  a  few  days  previously, 
"  how  in  Lancashire  all  things  savoured  of  open  rebellion 
.  .  .  how  in  most  places  the  people  fell  from  their  obedience, 
utterly  refusing  to  come  at  any  divine  service  said  in  the 
English  tongue;  how  since  Felton  set  up  the  Bull,  etc.,  the 
greatest  there  never  came  at  any  service,  neither  would 
suffer  any  to  be  said  in  their  house  but  have  openly  enter- 
tained sundry  runagate  Lovanists  Massers  with  their  Bulls, 
etc.  ...  I  have  learned  also  of  my  kinsfolks  that  country- 
men, that  omnia  apud  illos  sapiunt  seditiones  et  apertavi 
rebellionem!' '  A  year  later,  Bishop  Barnes  still  held  the  same 
views,  as  may  be  seen  in  a  letter  to  Cecil  dated  20th  October, 
1 571.  "  Praised  be  the  Lord,"  he  exclaims,  "  Who  even  in 
this  angle  and  utmost  corner  amongst  these  savage  people, 
hath  reared  up  the  Church  of  his  Christ,  and  mightily  pros- 
pered his  Gospel  and  my  simple  ministry,  whereof  I  doubt 
not  but  in  short  time  to  yield  great  good  fruit  to  God  and 
to  the  Queen's  Majesty.  I  dare  boldly  assure  your  Lord- 
ship that  at  this  day,  there  is  not  one  known  gentleman  or 
other  within  this  little  diocese  that  openly  repineth  against 
religion,  that  refuseth  to  communicate  or  come  to  the 
church  to  hear  divine  service,  or  that  forbeareth  or  shunneth 
sermons,  or  openly  speak  against  the  religion  established 
or  the  ministers  thereof;  those  of  the  Lowlands  excepted, 
amongst  whom  is  neither  fear,  faith,  virtue,  nor  knowledge 
of  God,  nor  regard  of  any  religion  at  all ;  which  are  but  four 
parishes,  Arthureth,  Kirklinton,  Bencastle,  and  Stapleton. 
Some  indeed  are  not  in  all  things  yet  reclaimed  or  satisfied, 
but  surely  in  a  good  way,  and  come  well  forwards." " 

The  Bishopric  of  Chester  had  still  more  to  do  with  Lan- 
cashire than  had  Carlisle;  and  that  See  afforded  no  bed  of 
roses  for  its  occupant,  William  Downham,  on  the  whole  an 
easy-going  man,  who  did  not  care  to  harry  and  persecute 
his  flock,  however  individuals  might  differ  from  him  in 
opinion.  As  a  consequence  he  got  into  trouble  from  above 
and  from  below.    He  became  Bishop  early  in   1 561 ,  but 

1   P.R.O.  Dom.  Eliz.,  Add.,  xix,  No.  16.  I,  16th  October,  1570. 
■  Ibid.,  xx,  No.  84. 


316     TASK  OF  THE  ELIZABETHAN  BISHOPS 

though  he  was  a  member  of  the  Ecclesiastical  Commission 
for  enforcing  the  Acts  of  Supremacy  and  Uniformity,  he 
did  not  even  visit  his  diocese  till  pressure  was  put  upon 
him  to  do  so.  Pilkington,  his  neighbour  bishop,  was  much 
scandalised  at  his  negligence,  and  complained  of  it  to  Arch- 
bishop Parker.  "  The  Bishop  of  Chester  has  compounded 
with  my  Lord  of  York  for  his  visitation  and  gathers 
up  the  money  [i.e.,  the  visitation  fees]  by  his  servant; 
but  never  a  word  spoken  of  any  visitation  or  reformation ; 
and  that,  he  says,  he  does  of  friendship,  because  he  will 
not  trouble  the  country,  nor  put  them  to  charge  in  calling 
them  together.  I  beseech  you  .  .  .  help  to  amend  that 
[which]  is  amiss."  l  This  continued  slackness  as  regards 
coercing  the  reactionary  tendencies  of  his  flock  at  last 
brought  down  on  him  the  displeasure  of  the  Queen,  who 
sharply  rebuked  him.  The  draft  of  this  remarkable  letter, 
corrected  by  Cecil  himself,  is  in  the  Record  Office,2  and 
may  be  quoted  almost  in  full,  as  illustrating  the  royal 
methods  of  dealing  with  the  State  bishops.  "  We  greet  you 
well.  We  think  it  not  unknown  to  you  how  we  of  our 
mere  motion  for  the  good  opinion  we  conceived  of  you  in 
your  former  service  of  us,  admitted  you  to  be  the  Bishop 
of  that  diocese  of  Chester,  expecting  in  you  that  diligence 
and  carefulness  for  the  containing  of  our  subjects  in  the 
uniformity  of  religion  and  service  of  God  according  to  the 
laws  of  our  realm,  as  now  upon  the  credible  reports  of  dis- 
orders and  contempts  to  the  contrary  in  your  diocese  and 
specially  in  the  county  of  Lancaster,  we  find  great  lack  in 
you,  being  sorry  to  have  our  former  expectation  in  this 
sort  deceived.  In  which  matter  of  late  we  wrote  unto  you 
and  others  our  commissioners  joined  with  you,  to  cause 
certain  suspected  persons  to  be  apprehended,  writing  also 
at  the  same  time  to  our  R.  R.  T.  and  R.  W.  Cousin  and 
Councillor  the  Earl  of  Derby  for  the  aiding  of  you  in  that 
behalf.  Since  which  time,  and  before  the  delivery  of  our 
said   letters  to  the  Earl  of  Derby,  we  be  duly  informed 

1  Parker  Corresp.,  No.  168,  about  1564,  p.  222. 

2  P.R.O.  Dom.  Eliz.,  XLVi,  No.  33,  21st  February,  1567-8. 


CHESTER  317 

that  the  said  Earl  hath,  upon  small  motion  made  to  him, 
caused  all  such  persons  as  have  been  required  to  be  appre- 
hended, and  hath  showed  himself  therein  according  to  our 
assured  expectation  very  faithful  and  careful  for  our  service. 

"  Now,  therefore,  considering  the  place  you  hold  to  be 
the  principal  minister  in  these  causes,  and  such  disorders 
found  within  your  diocese,  as  we  hear  not  of  the  like  in 
any  other  parts  of  our  realm,  we  will  and  charge  you 
further  to  have  other  regard  to  your  office,  and  specially  to 
foresee  that  all  churches  and  cures  be  provided  of  honest 
and  as  well  learned  curates  as  you  can  cause  to  be  pro- 
vided, using  therein  the  ordinances  and  censures  of  the 
Church  to  the  remedy  of  the  defaults,  and  suffer  not  for 
lack  of  your  own  personal  visitation  of  your  diocese,  by 
repairing  into  the  remoter  parts  and  specially  into  Lan- 
cashire, that  obstinate  parsons,  having  been  justly  deprived 
of  offices  of  ministry,  be  secretly  maintained  to  pervert  our 
good  subjects  within  any  part  of  your  diocese,  as  we  under- 
stand they  have  now  of  long  time  been.  And  herein  we 
have  the  more  cause  to  blame  you,  for  that  besides  your 
episcopal  jurisdiction,  you  have  had  also  other  good  au- 
thority l  to  reform  these  disorders  by  our  special  commis- 
sion to  you  and  others  directed  for  the  reformation  of  these 
kinds  of  abuses  in  matters  ecclesiastical,  which  you  did 
instantly  require  to  have,  with  promise  thereby  to  have 
preserved  your  diocese  from  these  disorders." 

Urged  at  last  into  activity  by  this  peremptory  reminder 
of  the  purpose  for  which  he  had  been  made  a  bishop,  Down- 
ham  set  about  his  long  delayed  visitation.  Three  months 
later  he  rendered  an  account  of  his  doings,  which  report  is 
remarkable  for  the  outward  results  apparently  secured,  so 
little  in  consonance  with  any  real  change  of  attitude  on  the 
part  of  the  gentry  and  others  of  Lancashire,  as  shown  not 

1  Cf.  P.R.O.  Dom.  Eliz.,  XXIII,  No.  56,  20th  July,  1562.  "Appoint- 
ment of  Commission  for  Ecclesiastical  Causes  within  the  diocese  of 
Chester,  to  enforce  the  Acts  for  the  Uniformity  of  Common  Prayer, 
and  for  restoring  to  the  Crown  the  ancient  jurisdiction  over  the  estate 
ecclesiastical  and  spiritual." 


318     TASK  OF  THE  ELIZABETHAN  BISHOPS 

only  during  the  remainder  of  Elizabeth's  reign,  but  through- 
out the  two  centuries  of  the  continuance  of  the  penal  laws. 
Looking  back  across  the  intervening  centuries  in  the  light 
of  all  that  has  happened  in  the  interval,  we  can  see  that 
any  submission  or  promise  of  reformation  made  to  Bishop 
Downham  on  the  occasion  referred  to  was  hollow,  insincere, 
and  a  mere  outward  show  to  allay  suspicion  for  the  mo- 
ment, and  to  secure  practical  connivance  for  another  period 
of  respite.  The  Bishop  wrote  thus  to  Cecil  on  ist  November, 
1568:  "...  I  have  sent  unto  you  ...  a  true  copy  of  all 
such  orders  as  I  .  .  .  have  taken  with  the  gentlemen  of 
Lancashire,  who,  one  only  excepted  whose  name  is  John 
Westby,  with  most  humble  submission  and  like  thanks 
unto  the  Queen's  Majesty  and  to  her  honourable  Council 
received  the  same,  promising  that  from  henceforth  they 
will  live  in  such  sort  that  they  will  never  hereafter  give 
occasion  of  offence  in  anything  concerning  their  bounden 
duty  as  well  towards  the  Religion  as  their  allegiance  to- 
wards their  Prince;  but,  for  the  better  performance  of  the 
same,  we  have  bound  every  of  them  in  recognisances  in  the 
sum  of  100  marks,  for  their  appearance  from  time  to  time, 
as  doth  appear  in  the  said  order.  The  punishment  of  these 
men  hath  done  so  much  good  in  the  country  that  I  trust  I 
shall  never  be  troubled  again  with  the  like,  besides  that 
Mr.  Dean  of  Paul's  [Alex.  Nowell]  at  his  being  in  the 
country,  with  his  continual  preaching  in  divers  places 
within  the  county  of  Lancashire,  hath  brought  many 
obstinate  and  wilful  people  unto  conformity  and  obedience. 
...  I  have  this  last  summer  visited  my  whole  diocese 
which  is  of  length  about  six  score  miles,  and  have  found 
the  people  very  tractable  and  obedient,  and  nowhere  more 
than  in  the  furthest  part  bordering  upon  Scotland,  where  I 
had  most  gentle  entertainment  of  the  worshipful,  to  my 
great  comfort;  my  journey  was  very  painful  by  reason  of 
the  extreme  heat,  and  if  I  had  not  received  great  courtesy 
of  the  gents,  I  must  have  left  the  most  of  my  horses  by  the 
way,  such  drought  was  never  seen  in  those  parts."  l 
1  P.R.O.  Dom.  Eliz.,  xlviii,  No.  36. 


CHESTER  319 

Bishop  Downham's  estimate  of  the  Lancashire  folk  is  in 
every  particular  the  direct  opposite  of  that  arrived  at  by 
others  who  had  been  observing  and  reporting  upon  them 
and  their  attitude.  Thus,  writing  to  Cecil  on  7th  May, 
1568,  Thomas  Young,  Archbishop  of  York,  complained 
that  the  commission  for  ecclesiastical  causes  had  not  been 
well  drawn  up,  "  for  whereas  Notts  is  part  of  my  diocese  of 
York  and  more  subject  to  the  malicious  practices  of  the 
enemies  of  God's  true  religion,"  and  that  being  on  the 
limits  of  the  diocese  it  was  in  consequence  "  farther  from 
due  means  of  reformation  and  correction,"  and,  further, 
"  nigh  neighbour  to  the  counties  of  Derby  and  Lancashire 
where  the  most  of  the  lewdest  sort  hath  remained  and  be 
cherished,"  he  also  pointed  out  that  "  there  are  within  Notts 
some  places  where  these  seditious  people  receive  great  re- 
lief, having  already  infected  very  grievously  some  of  good 
calling  in  that  country." '  Lancashire  was  a  source  of 
anxiety  to  the  Government  and  of  preoccupation  to  Burgh- 
ley  and  Walsingham  as  late  as  1580;2  ten  years  later, 
matters  were  worse  rather  than  better,  as  may  be  gathered 
from  "An  Information  touching  the  Recusants  of  Lan- 
cashire," sent  up  to  London.  This  document  points  out 
that  "  the  county  of  Lancashire  is  mightily  infected  with 
Popery:  the  number  of  Justices  of  Peace  within  that  county 
are  but  few  that  take  any  care  in  the  reformation  thereof; 
the  wives,  children  and  servants  of  some  Justices  of  the 
Peace  .  .  .  are  notable  recusants ;  .  .  .  there  are  that  stand 
indicted  upon  the  statute  of  recusants  800  persons  at  the 
least  within  that  county  .  .  . ;  the  estate  of  that  county  of 
Chester  is  much  like  to  that  of  Lancashire,  but  not  sore 
wounded  with  Popery  as  is  Lancashire  .  .  . ;  it  hath  been 
of  late  vehemently  suspected  that  Massing-priests  and 
such  like  resort  at  their  pleasures  to  the  recusants  in  the 
Castle  of  Chester,  etc." 3  Downham's  disinclination  to  per- 
secute again  asserted  itself;  and,  such  being  the  case,  again 

1  Lansd.  MS.  10,  No.  43. 

a  Cf.  Bar/.  MS.  6992,  No.  62,  f.  123. 

3  Cotton  MS.  Titus  B.  ill,  No.  20,  f.  58,  February,  1589-90. 


320     TASK  OF  THE  ELIZABETHAN  BISHOPS 

he  got  into  trouble  with  the  Queen  and  her  Council,  who 
wrote  to  him  on  12th  November,  1570,  that  "whereas  the 
Queen's  Majesty  is  informed  of  sundry  disorders  committed 
within  his  diocese,  specially  in  Lancashire  by  such  as  refuse 
to  obey  the  laws  established  by  consent  of  the  realm  for  the 
use  of  Common  Prayer  and  other  ecclesiastical  orders,  and 
because  her  Majesty  supposeth  the  same  hath  come  to 
pass  through  his  remissness  in  not  looking  so  diligently  to 
the  charge  committed  to  him  as  had  been  convenient,  his 
Lordship  is  required  to  make  his  repair  hither,  bringing  with 
him  such  matter  for  declaration  of  his  proceedings  towards 
such  as  have  refused  to  come  to  Common  Prayer  as  may 
best  serve  for  his  purgation  and  for  the  answering  of  all 
other  things  committed  to  his  charge."  '  This  was  followed 
by  another  letter  on  13th  January,  1 570-1,  to  the  Arch- 
bishop of  Canterbury  "  to  call  before  him  the  Bishop  of 
Chester  and  to  understand  of  him  what  account  he  is  able 
to  make  of  the  government  in  the  charge  committed  to 
him  within  that  diocese;  for  that  the  Queen's  Majesty  is 
signified  of  sundry  disorders  that  of  late  have  been  com- 
mitted in  the  county  of  Lancaster  and  the  archdeaconry 
of  Richmond  in  matters  concerning  religion." 2  The 
result  was  evidently  so  unsatisfactory  to  the  authorities 
that  the  Archbishop  of  York,  as  Metropolitan,  nominated 
the  Bishop  of  Carlisle  to  hold  a  visitation  of  Chester 
diocese  in  his  name;  and  the  Council,  to  further  the  matter, 
directed  letters  to  the  Sheriffs  and  Justices  within  Chester 
diocese  "  as  well  to  the  furtherance  of  true  religion  as  to 
the  repressing  of  errors  and  reformation  of  evil  life  "  to  be 
"  aiding  and  assisting  unto "  the  Visitor  and  his  officials, 
and  when  called  upon  to  do  so,  to  "  apprehend,  attach  and 
to  imprison  all  such  as  shall  be  detected  obstinately  to 
disobey  the  godly  laws  for  religion."  3  The  results  do  not 
transpire;  but  it  is  the  disposition  of  the  people  that  called 
for  such  measures  which  chiefly  concerns  us  here.    Some- 

1  Lansd.  MS.  981,  f.  165;  Council  Book,  Q.  Eliz.,  1570.        -  Ibid. 
3  Acts  of  the  Privy  Council,  New  series,  vol.  viii,  p.  26,  12th  May, 
1571. 


CHESTER  321 

thing  similar  again  occurred,  as  may  be  gathered  from  a 
letter  of  Bishop  Downham  to  the  Privy  Council,  written 
on  1st  February,  1575-6,  in  response  to  an  order  received 
from  them,  dated  22nd  November,  1575,  "for  redress  of 
such  as  .  .  .  have  not  of  long  time  come  to  any  church  or 
public  place  of  prayer."  The  Bishop  replied  that  he  had 
"  made  diligent  inquisition  throughout  the  said  diocese 
what  such  gentlemen  and  other  persons  there  be  that  re- 
fuse to  come  to  the  church,  and  thereby  have  been  informed 
of  divers  such  whom  we  have  sent  for,  of  which  some  have 
come  before  us  and  by  good  persuasions  have  showed 
themselves  conformable  to.  The  others  have  not  come 
but  either  remain  in  their  wilfulness  still,  or  else  have 
showed  in  the  country  where  they  dwell  some  token  of 
obedience  as  we  have  understanding  from  those  whom  we 
judge  worthy  of  credit.  And  for  more  certain  and  plain 
certificate  of  the  premisses,  we  have  herein  sent  their 
names  enclosed." 1  The  certificate  referred  to 2  gives  the 
names  of  over  one  hundred  persons  of  all  degrees,  many 
of  whom  are  specially  noted  as  "obstinate,"  and  two  only 
as  "  conformable,"  while  twelve  are  particularly  singled  out 
as  leaders,  for  the  Bishop  says  they  are,  in  the  opinion  of 
his  officers,  "  of  longest  obstinacy  against  religion,  and  if 
to  your  good  wisdoms  these  could  be  reclaimed,  we  think 
the  other  would  as  well  follow  their  good  example  in  em- 
bracing the  Queen's  Majesty's  most  godly  proceedings,  as 
they  have  allowed  their  evil  example  in  contemning  their 
duty  in  that  behalf."  Even  at  the  time  of  the  Bishop's 
death  (which  occurred  on  3rd  December,  1577),  as  G.  Fyton, 
writing  to  Walsingham,3  points  out,  the  Council  had  re- 
cently sent  letters  to  the  much-harassed  prelate  "  for  certi- 
fying the  names  of  such  wilful  and  stiff-necked  Papists  as 
refusers  to  come  to  public  and  divine  prayer."  Fyton  hints 
that  the  Bishop  was  not  quite  impartial  as  to  whom  he  haled 
before  him  for  recusancy,  for  after  mentioning  a  few  thus 
summoned  "  who  in  flat  terms  refused  to  reconcile  them- 

1  Harl.  MS.  286,  No.  19,  f.  27.  -  Ibid.,  360,  No.  39,  f.  67. 

3  29th  November.    P.R.O.  Dom.  Eliz.,  cxvin,  No.  48. 

Y 


322     TASK  OF  THE  ELIZABETHAN  BISHOPS 

selves,"  he  proceeds:  "besides  these,  the  chief  ringleaders 
and  captains  are  not  by  us  touched,  for  that  the  Bishop 
hath  not  had  them  presented  to  him,  neither  to  any  com- 
missioners in  causes  ecclesiastical,  yet  the  speech  is  that 
they  have  Mass  daily:  at  the  church  they  were  not  this 
many  years."  Finally,  he  points  out  that  "  there  is  not  so 
many  favourers  of  God  in  Cheshire  as  within  this  seven 
year  were,  by  seven  thousand."  The  certificate  left  behind 
him  by  the  Bishop  when  he  died,  and  which  was  forwarded 
to  Walsingham  by  Robert  Leche  the  Chancellor,  contains 
the  names  of  sixty-nine  recusants,  most  of  them  being 
repetitions  of  the  previous  list;1  another  catalogue,  of 
later  date,  giving  the  "  names  of  the  gentlemen  whose 
houses  are  greatly  infected  with  Popery,  and  not  looked 
unto," 2  contains  several  new  names  of  distinguished  per- 
sons guilty  of  recusancy.  William  Chaderton  succeeded  to 
the  See  of  Chester  in  1 579 ;  and,  as  an  uncompromising  sup- 
porter of  coercive  measures  to  secure  conformity,  as  his  pre- 
vious record  while  at  Cambridge  proves,  he  was  not  long  in 
taking  stock  of  the  backslidings  of  his  new  charge.  Writing 
on  8th  August,  1580,  to  the  Earl  of  Leicester,3  he  reported 
of  the  gentry  of  Lancashire:  "  although  they  have  received 
her  Highness'  process,  yet  have  they  not  appeared;  neither 
yet  being  fined  ^40  for  their  contumacy,  have  they  made 
any  appearance  or  submission,  or  given  any  token  of  con- 
formity." On  4th  October,  1580,4  he  reported  to  Walsing- 
ham that  "  many  of  the  gentlemen  continue  still  in  their 
contempt  and  obstinacy  .  .  .  almost  all  those  who  are 
conformed,  but  especially  the  gentlemen,  will  not  yield  to 
communicate:  we  bear  with  their  weakness,  or  rather  with 
their  hardness  for  this  time,  and  only  bind  them  to  come 
to  service  and  sermons,  etc.;  desiring  to  understand  the 
Lords  of  the  Council's  pleasure,  how  their  Lordships  would 
advise  us  to  deal  with  them,  if  in  reasonable  time  we  shall 
not  be  able  to  win   them."     Writing  four  days  later   to 

1  P.R.O.  Dom.  Eliz.  cxvm,  No.  49. 

8  Ibid.,  Add.,  xxvn,  No.  94.  3  Ibid.,  Add.  xxvn,  No.  28. 

4  Ibid.,  Dom.,  cxliii,  No.  7. 


YORK  323 

Burghley  and  Walsingham,1  he  says:  "I  have  sent  unto 
your  honours  herein  enclosed  the  names  of  all  such  as 
were  indicted  at  our  last  sessions  holden  at  Richmond, 
.Manchester  and  Prescot.  At  these  sessions  we  have  (God 
be  thanked)  reclaimed  a  number  of  all  sorts,  'as  your 
honours  shall  understand  hereafter:  and  yet  still  there 
remain  many  obstinate,  who  in  time  (we  have  good  hope) 
will  be  conformed  if  action  may  be  continued  with  dilig- 
ence." In  the  same  letter  he  calls  these  recusants  "ob- 
stinate and  dangerous  people."  In  a  return  made  in  1582, 
the  number  of  recusants  in  Lancashire  was  stated  to  be 
428/  The  evidence  still  available  all  goes  to  show  that 
the  diocese  of  Chester  was  honeycombed  with  Popery:  in 
other  words,  that  that  portion  of  England  at  least  did  not 
take  the  view  ascribed  to  the  nation  at  large  by  Dr.  Man- 
dell  Creighton. 

The  great  and  extensive  diocese  of  York,  holding  the 
prominent  position  of  dignity  in  the  North  which  it  did, 
was  naturally  much  under  the  eyes  of  Elizabeth's  ministers, 
and  certainly  was  a  source  of  anxiety  and  care  to  them. 
The  Earl  of  Rutland,  writing  to  Cecil  on  25th  February, 
1 560- 1,  added  as  a  postscript  to  his  letter:  "  I  do  not  find 
the  country  so  forward  in  religion  as  I  wish  it  to  be. 
Wherefore  I  think  it  good  ye  move  the  Archbishop  to 
bring  some  good  preachers  with  him."  3 

When  Thomas  Young,  who  had  been  made  Bishop  of 
St.  David's  in  1560,  was  promoted  to  York  the  following 
year,  through  Parker's  recommendation  of  him  as  "  witty, 
prudent,  and  temperate,  and  man-like," 4  he  had  not  been 
long  acquainted  with  his  charge,  before  he  had  put  his 
finger  on  a  weak  spot  in  the  armour  of  the  old  school,  and 
urged  the  enforcing  of  the  oath  of  Supremacy  on  the  Justices 
of  the  Peace.  No  sooner  had  he  begun,  than  opposition 
was  offered  to  him,  "  as  divers,  of  worship  .  .  .  affirmed 

1  P.R.O.  Dom.  Eliz.,  cxliii,  No.  11,  8th  October,  1580. 

2  Did.  Nat.  Biogr.,  vol.  xii,  p.  150. 

n  P.R.O.,  Borders,  Eliz.,  IV,  No.  683. 

4  P.R.O.  Dom.  Eliz.,  xiv,  No.  22,  16th  October,  1560. 


324     TASK  OF  THE  ELIZABETHAN  BISHOPS 

there  was  no  such  thing  required  nor  given  before."  He 
persuaded  them  at  last  to  submit,  but  it  struck  him 
"that  there  hath  been  some  sinister  practices  touching 
that  oath  heretofore;  and  some  men  think  that  either  the 
fault  was  in  the  Justices  of  the  Circuit  .  .  .  wherefore, 
for  avoiding  of  division  .  .  .  and  for  setting  forth  of  uni- 
formity ...  I  think  it  good  that  a  commission  were 
directed  into  these  parts  to  minister  and  receive  the 
oath  as  well  of  all  Justices  of  the  Peace,  as  of  other  min- 
isters, and  officers  of  the  laity."  l  It  is  clear  that  he  saw 
little  else  but  Popery  around  him,  and  his  conclusion  was 
shared  by  others  in  authority.  For  instance,  the  Earl  of 
Bedford,  writing  about  York  to  Cecil,  told  him :  "  I  have 
found  here  in  these  parts  great  courtesy  among  the  gentle- 
men, and  do  fear  that  the  Popery  rooted  among  them  will 
bring  forth  evil  fruit,  without  some  magistrate  come  among 
them  to  restrain  them  with  authority." 2  Others  looking  on 
from  afar  also  noticed  that  the  Reformation  was  not  work- 
ing altogether  smoothly,  for  Alvaro  Quadra,  the  Bishop  of 
Avila,  wrote  to  Philip  as  early  as  27th  November,  1561: 
"  It  is  said  publicly  that  [Lady  Margaret  Douglas]  .  .  . 
shows  favour  to  the  Catholics  in  the  Province  of  York,  and 
that  consequently  the  Bishop  dares  not  visit  his  diocese  or 
punish  any  Papist."  '  For  the  Queen  a  somewhat  more  hope- 
ful picture  was  painted.  Archbishop  Young  wrote  to  her 
personally  on  30th  June,  1564.4  Therein  he  assured  her 
"  that  this  country  wherein  you  have  doubly  placed  me,  is 
at  this  present  in  good  quietness,  the  common  people  being 
rightly  handled  both  tractable  and  corrigible  touching  re- 
ligion"; the  clergy,  too,  appeared  to  be  "  now  thoroughly 
agreed  .  .  .  and  every  preacher  through  my  charge  doth 
quietly  and  honestly  with  diligence  apply  his  office.     I 

1  P.R.O.  Dom.  Eliz.,  xxi,  No.  27,  25th  January,'i  561-2 ;  cf.  also 
Earl  of  Rutland  to  Cecil,  10th  June,  1561 ;  P.R.O.,  Borders,  Eliz.,  iv, 
No.  190. 

2  P.R.O.,  Borders,  Eliz.,  vn,  No.  208,  23rd  March,  1563-4. 
:!  Hume,  Cal.  of  Span.  Papers,  i,  p.  144. 

4  P.R.O.,  Borders,  Eliz.,  VII,  No.  450. 


YORK  325 

would  the  rest  of  your  realm  were  in  no  worse  case  than  we 
in  these  parts  now  be  in  that  behalf.  And  verily  there  is 
great  hope  that  we  shall  so  continue.  And  as  for  the  stay 
against  religion  in  these  parts,  it  was  only  the  nobility, 
gentlemen,  and  clergy.  And  although  the  nobility  remain 
in  their  wonted  blindness,  yet  the  gentlemen  begin  well  to 
reform  themselves,  and  the  clergy  also."  After  recounting 
his  dealings  in  terrorem  with  Prebendary  George  Palmes, 
whom  he  had  kept  in  prison  for  two  years  and  then  ad- 
ministered the  oath  to  him,  which  he  refused,  he  proceeds: 
"  I  do  not  know  one  of  the  ecclesiastical  sort  here  that  will 
now  make  any  countenance  to  stand  in  the  same."  The 
Archbishop's  declared  policy  was  to  keep  the  people  in  awe 
by  fear  of  punishment;  this  appears  many  times  in  his  cor- 
respondence. He  was  thus,  as  to  the  result  he  hoped  to 
obtain  by  his  policy,  in  harmony  with  the  Queen  who  pro- 
posed not  to  enquire  into  consciences,  but  was  satisfied  with 
outward  conformity  to  the  laws.  Thus,  writing  to  Cecil  on 
29th  April,  1565,  after  detailing  his  dealings  with  Sir  W. 
Babthorpe  and  the  effect  these  had  had  upon  the  neigh- 
bouring gentry,  he  remarks:  "  It  seemeth  to  me  that  they 
are  now  in  great  awe  and  good  obedience,  wherein  it  is 
meet  they  be  kept.  And  as  touching  myself  (God  willing), 
I  shall  not  fail  to  do  my  part  in  that  behalf." ' 

A  characteristic  postscript  to  a  letter  written  by  him  to 
the  Queen  may  here  be  given,  showing  still  further  his 
attitude  towards  the  Catholics,  also  giving  a  glimpse  be- 
hind the  scenes  painted  by  him  illustrative  of  the  conformity 
and  good  order  of  his  Province.  "  This  inconstancy  and 
murmuring  of  the  people  in  these  parts  touching  the  altera- 
tion of  religion  doth  .  .  .  arise  .  .  .  chiefly  through  the 
trifling  and  late  remiss  dealing  of  the  judges  and  lawyers  of 
your  Majesty's  Court  called  the  King's  Bench  (who  make 
and  wrest  the  laws  at  their  pleasure)  with  Mr.  Bonner, 
late  Bishop  of  London,  and  Doctor  Palmes  sent  from 
thence,  where,  nor  elsewhere,  (I  take  it),  there  will  be  no 

1  P.R.O.  Dom.  Eliz.  Add.,  XII,  No.  58. 


326     TASK  OF  THE  ELIZABETHAN  BISHOPS 

good  stay,  until  some  good  order  be  taken  with  them  and 
such  as  they  are ;  for  experience  now  showeth,  and  so  will 
daily  more  and  more,  that  they  have  been  too  long  dallied 
withal.  And  yet  have  they  and  others  your  people  vainly 
persuaded  themselves,  and  so  do  continue,  that  your  Ma- 
jesty would  have  none  of  that  sort  so  offending  your  laws 
punished.  And  what  hereof  in  the  end  is  like  to  grow,  I 
doubt  not." ' 

111  health  now  began  to  put  a  check  on  his  activities,  and 
he  died  just  three  years  later.  The  vacancy  in  the  northern 
primacy  was  not  filled  till  1 570,  when  Grindal  was  promoted 
from  London.  He  reached  his  See  on  17th  August,  and  on 
the  29th  of  that  month  he  wrote  his  first  impressions  to  Cecil. 
He  had  been  hurt  by  the  coldness  of  the  reception  accorded 
him :  "  I  was  not  received  with  such  concourse  of  gentle- 
men at  my  first  coming  into  this  shire,  as  I  looked  for  " ; 
but  he  found  a  legitimate  excuse  for  abstainers  in  the 
amount  of  sickness  then  prevalent.  He  then  proceeded: 
"  I  cannot  as  yet  write  of  the  state  of  this  country  as  of 
mine  own  knowledge,  but  I  am  informed  that  the  greatest 
part  of  our  gentlemen  are  not  well  affected  to  godly  religion, 
and  that  amongst  the  people  there  are  many  remanents  of 
the  old  superstitions.  They  keep  holydays  and  fasts  abro- 
gated ;  they  offer  money,  eggs,  etc.,  at  the  burial  of  their 
dead ;  they  pray  on  beads,  etc. ;  so  as  this  seemeth  to  be,  as 
it  were,  another  Church,  rather  than  a  member  of  the  rest. 
And  for  the  little  experience  I  have  of  this  people,  me- 
thinketh  I  see  in  them  three  evil  qualities:  which  are,  great 
ignorance,  much  dullness  to  conceive  better  instructions, 
and  great  stiffness  to  retain  their  wonted  errors.  I  will 
labour  as  much  as  I  can  to  cure  every  of  these,  committing 
the  success  to  God.  I  forbear  to  write  unto  her  Majesty  of 
these  matters,  till  I  may  write  upon  better  knowledge." ' 
Recovering  from  his  attacks  of  ague,3  he  rapidly  got  to 
work,  and  by  10th   November,  he  was  able  to  report  to 

1  P.R.O.  Dom.  Eliz.  Add.,  xn,  No.  68,  23rd  June,  1565. 

2  P.R.O.  Dom.  Eliz.,  lxxiii,  No.  35. 

3  1  Zur.t  No.  100,  p.  259. 


YORK  327 

Cecil  a  raid  he  had  made  upon  the  old  Countess  of  North- 
umberland's house,  and  the  capture  therein  of  three  priests.1 
Writing  to  Henry  Bullinger  on  25th  January,  1571-2,  he 
told  him  that  since  his  arrival  in  the  North,  "  I  have  laboured 
to  the  utmost  of  my  power,  and  still  continue  to  do,  in  the 
visitation  of  my  Province  and  diocese,  and  in  getting  rid  of 
those  remaining  superstitions  which  have  maintained  their 
place  more  firmly  in  this  part  of  the  country,  suffering  as  it 
does  under  a  dearth  of  learned  and  pious  ministers.  After 
the  suppression  of  the  late  rebellion  I  find  the  people  more 
complying  than  I  expected,  as  far  as  external  conformity 
is  concerned;  the  reason  is  that  they  have  been  sufficiently 
distressed  [satis  afflicti\  and  therefore  humbled,  by  these 
calamities  which  are  always  the  concomitants  of  civil  war. 
I  wish  I  had  found  them  as  well  instructed  in  the  true  re- 
ligion, as  I  left  my  flock  in  London  and  Essex  to  my  suc- 
cessor." a  Sir  Thomas  Gargrave  made  an  independent  sur- 
vey of  the  condition  of  Yorkshire,  sending  the  "  names  of 
the  principal  gentlemen  of  Yorkshire  "  to  Lord  Burghley 
on  18th  September,  1572.  He  drew  up  his  list  in  four  cate- 
gories :  4  3  Protestants ;  1 9  of  the  "  worst  sort  "  of  Catholics  ; 
22  "  mean  or  less  evil,"  though  on  a  perusal  of  the  names, 
it  is  difficult,  in  the  face  of  history,  to  realise  in  what  way 
they  were  "less  evil";  39  "doubtful,"  though  amongst 
these,  too,  are  to  be  found  the  names  of  many  who  were 
staunch  Catholics;  and  the  list  is  clearly  incomplete,  for  it 
ends  with  the  significant  statement:  "  Many  more  evil  and 
doubtful."3  The  Injunctions  issued  for  this  visitation4 
show  that  there  were  many  Catholic  practices  still  to  be 
stamped  out.  Strype  5  thus  comments  on  and  sums  them 
up.  "  By  the  heeding  of  which  Injunctions  one  may  observe 
how  old  popish  customs  still  prevailed  in  these  northern 
quarters,  and  therefore  what  need  there  was  of  this  general 

1  Cf.  P.R.O.  Dom.  Eliz.,  lxxiv,  No.  32. 

-  I  Zur.,  No.  100,  p.  259. 

3  P.R.O.  Dom.  Add.  Eliz.,  xxi,  86  ii. 

1  Cf.  Grindal's  Remains,  pp.  123,  sqq. 

5  Life  and  Acts  of  Archbishop  Grindal,  p.  250. 


328     TASK  OF  THE  ELIZABETHAN  BISHOPS 

visitation;  as  the  frequent  use  and  veneration  of  crosses, 
month's  minds,  obits  and  anniversaries,  the  chief  intent 
whereof  was  praying  for  the  dead ;  the  superstitions  used 
in  going  the  bounds  of  the  parishes;  morris-dancers  and 
minstrels  coming  into  the  church  in  service-time,  to  the 
disturbance  of  God's  worship;  putting  the  consecrated 
bread  into  the  receiver's  mouth,  as  among  the  Papists  the 
priest  did  the  wafer;  crossing  and  breathing  upon  the 
elements  in  the  celebration  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  and 
elevation;  oil,  tapers,  and  spittle  in  the  other  Sacrament 
of  Baptism ;  pauses  and  intermissions  in  reading  the  ser- 
vices of  the  Church ;  praying  Ave- Marias  and  Pater-nosters 
upon  beads;  setting  up  candles  in  the  churches  to  the 
Virgin  Mary  on  Candlemas-day,  and  the  like."  ' 

1  The  evidence  of  these  Articles,  here  summarised  by  Strype,  may 
be  drawn  upon  at  greater  length,  for  the  information  they  convey  is 
eloquent  not  only  of  the  state  of  the  country  and  of  its  attitude  towards 
the  Reformation,  but  also  of  the  standards  and  ideals  the  chief  pro- 
moters of  it  had  set  themselves  to  attain.  Grindal  asks :  "  Whether 
in  your  churches  and  chapels,  all  altars  be  utterly  taken  down  and 
clean  removed,  even  unto  the  foundation,  and  the  place  where  they 
stood,  paved,  and  the  wall  whereunto  they  joined,  whited  over,  and 
made  uniform  with  the  rest,  so  as  no  breach  or  rupture  appear.  And 
whether  your  rood-lofts  be  taken  down,  and  altered,  so  that  the  upper 
parts  thereof  with  the  soller  or  loft  be  quite  taken  down  unto  the  cross 
beam,  and  that  the  said  beam  have  some  convenient  crest  put  upon 
the  same.  .  .  .  Whether  all  and  every  Antiphonars,  Mass  books,  Grails, 
Portesses,  Processionals,  Manuals,  Legendaries,  and  all  other  books 
of  late  belonging  to  your  church  or  chapel,  which  served  for  the  super- 
stitious Latin  service,  be  utterly  defaced,  rent,  and  abolished ;  and  if 
they  be  not,  through  whose  default  that  is,  and  in  whose  keeping  they 
remain?  And  whether  all  vestments,  albs,  tunicles,  stoles,  phanons, 
pixes,  paxes,  hand-bells,  sacring-bells,  censers,  chrismatories,  crosses, 
candlesticks,  holy-water  stocks,  images,  and  such  other  relics  and 
monuments  of  superstition  and  idolatry  be  utterly  defaced,  broken,  and 
destroyed.  And  if  not,  where  and  in  whose  custody  they  remain? 
WThether  your  parson  .  .  .  use  .  .  .  any  gestures,  rites,  or  ceremonies, 
not  appointed  by  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer,  as  crossing  or  breath- 
ing over  the  sacramental  bread  and  wine,  or  showing  the  same  to  the 
people,  to  be  worshipped  and  adored,  or  any  such  like ;  or  use  any 
oil  or  chrism,  tapers,  '  spattle,'  or  any  other  popish  ceremony  in  .  .  . 
Baptism?  Whether  any  holydays  or  fasting  days  heretofore  abrogated 


YORK  329 

With  such  methods  of  repression  in  use,  it  can  hardly  cause 
surprise  if  the  people  found  they  could  purchase  peace  by 
an  outward  conformity  which  in  no  wise  represented  inner 
conviction.  Hence  a  true  estimate  may  be  formed  of  the 
value  of  the  return  made  by  Grindal  to  Burghley  on  13th 

...  be  either  proclaimed  ...  or  be  superstitiously  observed.  .  .  . 
Whether,  when  any  man  or  woman  is  in  passing  out  of  this  life,  the 
bell  be  tolled  to  move  the  people  to  pray  for  the  sick  person.  .  .  .  And 
whether  on  All  Saints'  Day,  after  evening  prayer,  there  be  any  ringing 
at  all,  or  any  other  superstitious  ceremony  used,  tending  to  the  mainten- 
ance of  popish  Purgatory,  or  of  prayer  for  the  dead.  .  .  .  Whether 
there  be  any  in  your  parish,  that  openly  or  privately  say  Mass,  or  hear 
Mass.  .  .  .  Whether  any  popish  priests,  or  runagate  parsons,  mislikers 
or  depravers  of  true  religion  ...  do  resort  secretly  or  openly  into  your 
parish.  .  .  .  Whether  there  be  any  man  or  woman  in  your  parish  that 
resorteth  to  any  popish  priest  for  shrift  or  auricular  confession,  or  any 
that  within  three  years  now  last  past,  hath  been  reconciled  unto  the 
Pope  or  to  the  Church  of  Rome.  .  .  .  Whether  there  be  any  person  or 
persons  .  .  .  that  of  late  have  retained  ...  or  that  read,  sell,  utter, 
disperse,  carry  or  deliver  to  others  any  English  books,  set  forth  of  late 
years  at  Louvain,  or  in  any  other  place  beyond  the  seas,  by  Harding, 
Dorman,  Allen,  Sander,  Stapleton,  Marshall.  .  .  .  Whether  there  be 
any  in  your  parish  that  useth  to  pray  in  English  or  in  Latin,  upon 
beads,  or  other  such  like  thing,  or  upon  any  superstitious  popish  Primer, 
or  other  like  book?"  The  Injunctions  accompanying  the  Articles  cover 
the  same  familiar  ground,  but  the  order  to  destroy  altars  is  coupled 
with  the  further  order  that  "  the  altar  stones  be  broken,  defaced,  and 
bestowed  to  some  common  use."  Further,  none  of  the  laity  "  shall  wear 
beads,  or  pray  either  in  Latin  or  in  English  upon  beads  or  knots,  or 
any  other  like  superstitious  thing;  nor  shall  pray  upon  any  popish 
Latin  or  English  Primer  or  other  like  book,  nor  shall  burn  any  candles 
in  the  church  superstitiously  upon  the  feast  of  the  Purification  of  the 
Virgin  Mary,  commonly  called  Candlemas  Day;  nor  shall  resort  to 
any  popish  priest  for  shrift  or  auricular  confession  in  Lent,  or  at  any 
other  time ;  nor  shall  worship  any  cross  or  any  image  or  picture  upon 
the  same,  nor  give  any  reverence  thereunto ;  nor  superstitiously  shall 
make  upon  themselves  the  sign  of  the  cross  when  they  first  enter  into 
any  church  to  pray ;  nor  shall  say  De  Profundis  for  the  dead,  or  rest 
at  any  cross  in  carrying  any  corpse  to  burying,  nor  shall  leave  any 
little  crosses  of  wood  there."  (2nd  Report  of  Ritual  Commission,  1868, 
App.  E.,  pp.  41 1-5.)  In  1578,  Sandys,  Archbishop  of  York,  put  much 
the  same  queries  in  a  series  of  Articles.  (Cf.  Life  and  Acts  of  Archbishop 
Grindal  pp.  421-4.) 


330    TASK  OF  THE  ELIZABETHAN  BISHOPS 

November,  1574,1  wherein  he  says:  "  Only  five  persons  have 
been  committed  [during  the  past  term]  for  their  obstinacy 
in  papistical  religion."  He  deprecated,  too,  any  leniency 
being  shown  to  Papists.  They  had  been  petitioning  for  re- 
lease from  prison  :  "  But  certainly  my  Lord  President  and 
I  join  in  opinion,  that  if  such  a  general  jubilee  should  be  put 
in  use  in  these  parts,  a  great  relapse  would  follow  soon 
after."  In  view  of  such  methods  of  securing  conformity, 
small  wonder  was  it,  if  Grindal  complained  to  Archbishop 
Parker  of  "letters  full  of  slander,  terming  my  doings  and 
the  other  commissioners  to  be  like  the  Spanish  Inquisi- 
tion." -  The  irony  of  the  charge  lies  in  the  fact  that  it  was 
levelled  at  him,  not  by  a  Papist,  but  by  one  Lowth,  a  Puritan 
preacher.  How  near  Grindal  felt  himself  to  be  touched  by 
this  home-thrust,  may  be  gauged  by  the  views  expressed 
by  him  to  Lord  Burghley  on  2nd  June,  1572.  "  I  and  some 
other  Bishops,  according  to  the  order  taken  by  the  Higher 
House,  were  yesternight  with  the  Queen's  Majesty,  to  move 
her  Highness,  that  the  Bill  for  coming  to  divine  service 
might  by  her  assent  be  propounded.  ...  I  send  .  .  .  here- 
with to  your  Lordship  the  said  Bill  and  the  articles  of  the 
same,  with  some  increase  of  penalties  as  may  appear;  pray- 
ing your  Lordship  to  take  some  opportunity  to  move  her 
Highness  in  the  premisses.  The  passing  of  this  Bill  will 
do  very  much  good,  especially  in  the  North  parts  where 
pecuniary  mulcts  are  more  feared  than  bodily  imprisonment ; 
for  thereby  some  of  them  grow  richer  than  they  were  before, 
and  fall  to  purchasing  of  land  in  prison,  which  being  at 
liberty  they  were  not  able  to  do."  3  Here  it  may  be  well  to 
deal  once  for  all  with  this  question  of  coercion  by  force. 
Not  that  it  can  be  condoned  or  excused  in  any  person  or 
period.  Still,  the  habit  of  mind  of  a  particular  century 
must  be  taken  into  our  calculation  when  estimating  the  cir- 

1  Remains,  No.  76,  p.  350. 

2  Ibid.,  No.  78,  4th  March,  1574-5,  p.  353. 

*■  P.R.O.  Dom.  Eliz.,  lxxxviii,  No.  5.  Cf.  also  P.R.O.  Dom.  Eliz., 
CXiv,  No.  22,  Aylmer  to  Burghley,  21st  June,  1577,  where  the  same 
course  is  suggested. 


YORK  33i 

cumstances;  and  in  this  respect  there  may  even  be  some- 
thing to  say  in  defence  of  a  system  which  was  resorted  to 
generally.  On  the  other  hand,  it  must  not  be  forgotten  that 
Bonner  was  credited,  rightly  or  wrongly,  with  the  perpetra- 
tion of  cruelties,  and  execrated  for  them  by  the  very  men, 
who,  when  they  themselves  came  into  power,  resorted  to 
force  and  cruelty  to  compass  their  ends.  Had  they  merely 
taken  the  view  that  cruelty  was  an  unfortunate  necessity : 
that,  therefore,  they  would  only  be  doing  what  their  pre- 
decessors were  charged  with  doing ;  though  we  cannot  with 
our  present  more  enlightened  views  endorse  theirs,  still  we 
could  find  excuse  for  them.  But  the  Elizabethan  bishops 
professed  to  execrate  Bonner's  alleged  cruelties;  they  thus 
set  up  a  higher  standard  of  ethics  in  theory,  and  failed  to 
reach  it  in  practice;  for  they  were  not  merely  the  local 
agents  of  the  central  authority  simply  carrying  out  orders ; 
they  were  urgent  to  have  those  orders  made.  In  proof,  the 
following  instances  may  be  cited.  On  17th  April,  1561, 
Bishop  Grindal  wrote  to  Cecil,  sending  him  the  confession 
of  one  John  Coxe  alias  Devon,  a  priest,  "  for  Mass  matters," 
and  then  urged:  "Surely  for  this  magic  and  conjuration 
your  honours  of  the  Council  must  appoint  some  extra- 
ordinary punishment  for  example." '  He  asks  for  greater 
severity,  specifically  because  the  Chief  Justice  "will  not 
meddle."  In  1 562,  the  Bishops  of  London  and  Ely  (Grindal 
and  Cox)  had  some  popish  prisoners  before  them  for  ex- 
amination, but  could  extract  nothing  from  them.  They 
complained  to  the  Privy  Council,  adding:  "Some  think 
that  if  this  priest  Havard  might  be  put  to  some  kind  of 
torment,  and  so  driven  to  confess  what  he  knoweth,  he 
might  gain  the  Queen's  Majesty  a  good  mass  of  money  by 
the  Masses  that  he  hath  said;  but  this  we  refer  to  your 
Lordships'  wisdom."  2  The  title  of  a  certain  document  will 
suffice  to  prove  that  the  bishops  were  prepared  to  sacrifice 
life  to  compass  their  ends.  "  Reasons  presented  to  the 
Queen's  Majesty  by  the  Bishops  to  prove  that  she  may 

1  P.R.O.  Dom.  Eliz.,  xvi,  No.  49. 

:  Hatfield  Papers,  i,  No.  865,  13th  September,  1562. 


332     TASK  OF  THE  ELIZABETHAN  BISHOPS 

lawfully  put  the  Scottish  Queen  to  death,  by  the  word  of 
God.  In  the  time  of  the  Parliament  holden  at  Westminster, 
1572."  '  There  is  no  need  to  quote  more  from  this  blood- 
thirsty document ;  its  title  alone  is  sufficient  to  show  whence 
pressure  was  exerted  on  the  Government  to  secure  the  per- 
petration of  a  judicial  murder.  Home  wrote  to  Cecil  on 
2 1st  January,  1569-70,  complaining  of  "what  troubles  and 
charges  overmuch  forbearing  of  the  Papists  hath  wrought," 
and  in  consequence  begged  for  the  issue  of  a  commission. 
"  It  shall  not  fall  out,"  he  says,  "  that  a  sword  is  put  into 
a  madman's  hand.  I  hope  to  do  good  service  thereby  .  .  . 
I  grow  into  years,  I  would  gladly  do  some  good  in  God's 
Church  before  my  departure."2  Sandys,  when  Bishop  of 
London,  frenzied  by  the  news  of  St.  Bartholomew's  Mas- 
sacre, wrote  to  Burghley,  saying:  "  Thus  am  I  bold  to  un- 
fold a  piece  of  my  mind  on  the  sudden,  and  to  make  you 
partaker  of  my  simple  cogitations."  Amongst  which  ap- 
pears: "Forthwith  to  cut  off  the  Scottish  Queen's  head. 
Ipsa  est  nostri  fundi  calamitasT  In  the  same  document  he 
further  suggested  that  "  the  chief  Papists  of  this  realm  are 
to  be  shut  up  in  the  Tower,  and  the  Popish  old  Bishops  to 
be  returned  thither."  3  Even  in  calmer  moments  he  had  no 
more  regard  for  life.  In  1575,  when  troubled  with  some 
Dutch  Anabaptists,  he  suggested  that  those  who  refused  to 
recant  should  be  banished ;  "  and  if  they  return  to  lose 
their  lives  for  it."  4  In  1577,  Aylmer  was  baffled  by  a  priest 
he  had  examined;  he  therefore  suggests:  "but  if  he  were 
showed  the  rack,  I  think  he  would  not  be  so  close,  for  he 
seemeth  somewhat  timorous.  ...  It  is  time,  my  Lord,  to 
look  about  .  .  .  and  to  use  more  severity  than  hitherto  hath 
been  used,  or  else  we  shall  smart  for  it."  6 

Thomas  Cooper,  Bishop  of  Lincoln,  when  sending  in  a 
certificate  of  recusants  in  his  diocese,  is  quite  apologetic  for 
the,  to  him,  unfortunate  exiguity  of  his  list:  "If  my  certifi- 

1  Cotton  MS.  Caligula  c.  11,  No.  243,  f.  524. 

2  Lansd.  MS.  12,  No.  31.     3  Ibid.,  15,  No.  41,  5th  September,  1572. 
4  Ibid.,  20,  No.  61,  nth  April. 

6  Ibid.,  25,  No.  30.    Aylmer  to  Burghley,  27th  June,  1577. 


YORK  333 

cate  do  not  note  unto  your  honours  so  many  persons  as  in 
these  corrupt  days  may  seem  proportionable  to  so  large  a 
circuit  as  my  diocese  containeth,  I  humbly  desire  your 
honours  favourably  to  interpret  the  same,  and  not  to  im- 
pute it  either  to  negligence  in  searching,  or  timorousness 
in  dealing  with  them."  '  This  spirit  may  account  for  the 
savagery  of  a  suggestion  made  by  him  in  1584,  when,  as 
Bishop  of  Winchester,  he  complained  that  Hampshire  was 
overrun  with  Papists;  and  the  plan  he  indicated  was  "that 
a  hundred  or  two  of  obstinate  recusants,  lusty  men,  well 
able  to  labour,  may  by  some  convenient  commission  be 
taken  up  and  sent  to  Flanders  as  pioneers  and  labourers 
[for  the  army  there],  whereby  the  country  shall  be  dis- 
burdened of  a  company  of  dangerous  people,  and  the  re- 
sidue that  remain  be  put  in  some  fear."2  Finally,  the 
Elizabethan  episcopate  should  hardly  with  grace  have  in- 
veighed against  their  Marian  predecessors  for  committing 
heretics  to  the  stake.  It  was  at  least  the  law  which  the 
latter  administered.  But  it  was  not  the  law  under  Eliza- 
beth; and  yet  Edmund  Freake,  while  Bishop  of  Norwich, 
committed  at  least  two 3  ignorant  men  to  the  flames  in 
punishment  of  their  religious  opinions :  Matthew  Hamount, 
sentenced  by  the  Bishop  on  14th  April,  1579,  to  lose  both 
his  ears,  which  were  cut  off  on  13th  May,  and  to  be  burnt 
at  the  stake,  which  was  carried  into  effect  in  the  castle 
ditch  on  20th  May.'  Again,  on  18th  September,  1583,  he 
tried  and  condemned  to  be  burnt  one  John  Lewes.5 

With  all  his  efforts,  however,  Grindal  did  not  succeed  in 
making  any  real  impression  on  the  Yorkshire  folk ;  and  when 
he  succeeded  Parker  in  the  See  of  Canterbury  at  the  end  of 
that  year,  there  was  a  vacancy  of  over  a  twelvemonth  before 
it  was  refilled  by  Edwin  Sandys  from  London.    During  the 

1  P.R.O.  Dom.  Eliz.,  cxvii,  No.  13.  Cooper  to  Council,  25th  Octo- 
ber, 1577- 

2  Egerton  MS.  1693,  f.  117 ;  Lansd.  MS.  97,  No.  20. 

3  Cardinal  Newman  says  there  were  three.  Cf.  Lectures  on  present 
position  of  Catholics,  1st  edition,  No.  v,  p.  206. 

4  Hart.  MS.  538,  No.  29,  f.  113.  5  Kennett  MS.  482,  f.  38. 


334     TASK  OF  THE  ELIZABETHAN  BISHOPS 

interval,  the  Earl  of  Huntingdon,  Lord  President  of  the 
North,  a  bitter  Protestant,  gave  Lord  Burghley  his  impres- 
sion of  the  religious  condition  of  those  parts.  "  Truly,  my 
Lord,  the  declination  in  matters  of  religion  is  very  great, 
and  the  obstinacy  of  many  doth  shrewdly  increase  .  .  . 
those  that  are  in  these  matters  most  peevish,  so  far  as  I  yet 
see,  are  in  this  town  [York],  women ;  and  in  the  country, 
very  mean  men  of  calling.  And,  as  it  is  told  me,  their 
number  is  great."  '  He  also  impressed  upon  Lord  Burghley 
his  views  as  to  the  qualifications  needed  in  an  Elizabethan 
bishop.  It  may  be  supposed  that  Edwin  Sandys  fulfilled 
his  ideal:  "comfortable  to  the  godly,  and  a  terror  to  the 
adversary."  He  pointed  out,  moreover,  that  "  next  to  a 
sound  judgment  and  zeal  in  religion,  which  are  two  most 
necessary  points  to  be  in  a  bishop,  he  that  shall  be  in  this 
place  had  need  to  be  a  man  which  otherwise  should  be 
both  wise  and  stout."  "  A  return  being  required  by  the  Coun- 
cil of  all  the  recusants,  Archbishop  Sandys  duly  complied, 
and  in  his  covering  letter  said :  "  As  yet  I  have  not  visited 
my  diocese,  and  so  cannot  come  by  full  understanding  of 
the  offenders.  But  these  are  too  many,  whose  intolerable 
insolency,  perverse  and  contemptuous  disobedience  is  with 
speed  to  be  repressed,  or  else  hardly  the  State  can  stand  in 
quiet  safety.  ...  I  have  already  laboured  what  I  can  since 
my  coming  hither,  as  well  by  persuasion  as  by  execution  of 
discipline  to  reform  them,  but  little  have  I  prevailed;  for  a 
more  stiff-necked,  wilful,  or  obstinate  people  did  I  never 
know  or  hear  of.  Doubtless  they  are  reconciled  to  Rome 
and  sworn  to  the  Pope.  They  will  abide  no  conference, 
neither  give  ear  to  any  doctrine  or  persuasion.  Some  of 
them,  when  the  prayer  for  the  Queen's  Majesty  hath  been 
read  unto  them,  have  utterly  refused  to  say  Amen  unto  it. 
Others  do  glory  (and  that  not  of  the  simplest  sort),  that 
they  never  knew  what  the  Bible  or  Testament  meant.  To 
some  I  have  offered  lodging  and  diet  in  my  house,  that  I 
mi°"ht  have  conference  with  them  for  their  conformity,  but 

1  Harl.  MS.  6992,  No.  26,  f.  50,  12th  September,  1576. 

2  Lansd.  MS.  20,  No.  50,  24th  June,  1575. 


YORK  335 

they  chose  rather  to  go  to  prison."  The  lengthy  certificate 
which  accompanied  this  letter  afforded  ample  evidence  that 
the  Bishop's  statements  were  in  no  way  overdrawn.  The 
only  grain  of  comfort  to  him  was  that  he  was  "  credibly 
informed  that  there  is  not  one  in  Nottinghamshire  which 
refuseth  to  come  to  church." '  Unfortunately  for  the 
Bishop,  further  enquiry  convinced  him  that  his  reliance  on 
the  conformity  of  Nottinghamshire  had  been  misplaced; 
supplementing  his  first  report  by  a  later  one,  he  says :  "  I 
well  hoped  that  none  such  should  have  been  found  there. 
But  I  perceive  that  no  part  of  this  north  country  standeth 
clear  and  not  infected."  2  On  16th  April,  1578,  Archbishop 
Sandys  wrote  to  Burghley  thus:  "  I  have  ended  my  visita- 
tion, which  I  did  by  myself  and  not  by  deputies,  to  my 
great  charge.  Now  knowing  the  state  of  my  diocese,  I  have 
by  my  letters  advertised  her  Majesty  thereof,  declaring  to 
her  Majesty  that  here  is  great  want  of  teachers,  by  reason 
whereof  an  ignorant  people.  .  .  .  The  obstinate  which 
refuse  to  come  to  church,  whereof  the  most  part  are  women, 
neither  can  I  by  persuasion  nor  correction  bring  them  to 
any  conformity.  They  depend  upon  Comberford  [a  priest] 
and  the  rest  in  the  Castle  at  Hull.  If  order  be  not  taken 
for  them,  I  fear  great  inconvenience  will  follow."  Nor  does 
he  speak  highly  of  the  bulk  of  his  flock:  "The  meaner 
people  here  is  idle  .  .  .  given  to  much  drinking,  whereof 
followeth  great  incontinency,  as  well  appeared  by  the  great 
multitude  of  fornicators  presented  in  this  my  last  visita- 
tion. Truly,  the  cause  hereof  is  the  want  of  good  instruc- 
tion."3 About  the  same  time  the  Earl  of  Huntingdon 
corroborated  these  views  in  a  report  to  the  Queen,  wherein 
he  said :  "  As  touching  the  state  of  this  country,  your 
Majesty's  subjects  here  (thanks  be  to  God)  do  to  our 
knowledges  in  all  outward  appearance  remain  quiet,  without 
any  notable  disorders  or  open  disobedience,  except  such  as 
be  obstinate  in  religion,  or  will  not  assent  to  say  Amen  to 

1  P.R.O.  Dom.  Eliz.,  cxvn,  No.  23,  28th  October,  1577. 

2  Ibid.,  cxvm,  No.  2.    Sandys  to  Council,  1st  November,  1577. 

3  Lansd.  MS.  27,  No.  12. 


336     TASK  OF  THE  ELIZABETHAN  BISHOPS 

any  prayer  set  out  in  the  Book  of  Common  Service,  no,  not 
to  those  godly  prayers  that  be  for  your  Majesty;  we  have 
tried  them  therewith  before  ourselves,  and  they  have 
refused  so  to  do,  and  also  refuse  to  come  to  the  church."  l 
The  proceedings  of  the  commissioners  for  causes  eccle- 
siastical in  the  summer  of  1580,  and  their  report  that  the 
"  Archdeaconry  of  Richmond  hath  been  and  is  very  obstin- 
ate and  rebellious,"  and  that  "  they  were  there  more  afraid 
of  these  times  lately  past  than  they  had  been  of  the  former 
Rebellion,"  shows  that  after  twenty-three  years  of  endeavour, 
very  little  real  headway  had  been  made  with  the  stamping 
out  of  the  old  Faith.2  A  return  made  in  1 582  states  that  the 
number  of  recusants  in  Yorkshire  was  327.' 

Hitherto  the  evidence  adduced  has  been,  though  first 
hand  and  valuable,  nevertheless,  in  a  certain  sense  private, 
or  at  least  unofficial.  Another  class  of  documents  may, 
however,  be  here  appealed  to,  which,  as  being  the  outcome 
of  questions  put,  or  orders  issued  by  the  Privy  Council,  are 
of  their  very  nature  official  and  public. 

In  the  summer  of  1563  the  Privy  Council,  as  the  head 
executive  of  the  State  Church  of  which  the  Queen  whom 
they  represented  was  Supreme  Head,  as  so  named  by  Act 
of  Parliament — or  Supreme  Governor,  as  she  preferred  to 
style  herself — issued  a  letter  to  all  the  bishops  of  both 
Provinces,  calling  on  them  to  furnish  particulars  about  their 
respective  dioceses,  under  certain  designated  heads.  The 
answers  sent  in,  though  complying  with  the  requirements 
of  the  Privy  Council,  were  not  all  drawn  up  on  precisely 
the  same  plan,  rendering  it  at  this  date  difficult  to  tabulate 
the  results  with  accuracy.  Moreover,  in  process  of  time, 
these  various  returns  have  found  their  way  into  different 
collections  of  papers;  some  even  may  have  been  lost;  at 
any  rate  it  is  not  possible  to  secure  complete  returns  from 
all  the  dioceses.  But  for  general  purposes  those  that  are 
available  will  serve  all  practical  ends.    Some  are  fuller  and 

1  P.R.O.  Dom.  Add.  Eliz.,  xxv,  No.  21,  18th  May,  1577- 
-  Cf.  P.R.O.  Dom.  Eliz.,  cxli,  No.  3,  5th  August,  1580. 
'J  Did.  Nat.  Biog.,  vol.  xii,  p.  1 50. 


STATISTICS  OF  NORTHERN  PROVINCE      337 

more  detailed  than  others:  some  give  not  only  the  names 
of  the  parishes,  but  even  of  the  incumbents,  and  are  there- 
fore of  particular  value  to  any  one  anxious  to  complete 
lists  of  incumbents,  which  for  that  particular  date  are 
strangely  and  almost  uniformly  deficient  in  the  county  his- 
tories and  other  works  of  a  like  scope.  That  aspect  of  their 
usefulness  is  not,  however,  of  interest  in  this  place.  The 
information  required  of  the  bishops  may  be  gathered  from 
their  answers,  and  were  as  follows:  (1)  the  shires  com- 
prised in  the  diocese;  (2)  how  the  diocese  was  divided, 
whether  into  deaneries,  archdeaconries,  etc.,  for  purposes 
of  government  and  administration;  (3)  the  list  of  peculiars 
within  the  limits  of  the  diocese,  and  to  whom  belonging; 
(4)  the  number  of  churches  and  chapels;  how  many  had  in- 
cumbents; (5)  the  number  of  householders  in  each  parish; 
(6)  information,  if  possible,  about  the  peculiars,  as  above. 
Of  these,  only  Nos.  4  and  5  need  concern  us  here ;  and,  as 
a  matter  of  fact,  the  question  of  population  is  of  purely 
academic  interest,  unless  from  it  could  be  deduced  the  pro- 
portion of  Catholics  and  Protestants.   But  this  is  impossible. 

Before  discussing  the  figures  contained  in  these  episcopal 
returns,  the  reader's  attention  is  invited  to  another  docu- 
ment from  a  Catholic  source,  which  gives  a  useful  synopsis 
of  the  English  and  Welsh  dioceses,together  with  the  counties 
comprised  in  each,  and  the  number  of  parishes  within  each 
jurisdiction.1  The  grand  total  of  parishes,  as  given  by  this 
list,  reaches  9,285,  of  which  1,083  are  in  the  Northern 
Province,  distributed  as  follows:  York,  582;  Chester,  256; 
Carlisle,  93;  Durham,  135;  Sodor  and  Man,  17.  It  is  clear 
that  this  list  does  not  include  chapels  of  ease. 

The  York  return  would  be  interesting,  but  it  is  not  forth- 
coming. Another  return,  however,  probably  made  in  1565, 
of  "vacant"  livings,names  thirty -three  so  deprived  of  pastors. 
The  reason  for  the  vacancy  is,  in  most  instances,  the  poverty 

1  Cf.  Records  of  the  English  Catholics,  p.  93.  "  Recensio  antiquorum 
Angliae  Episcopatuum,  cum  Comitatibus  singulorum  ambitu  conten- 
ds ;  cui    adjungitur  numerus  Parochiarum  quae  unicuique   Dioecesi 
subjectae  sunt."  This  is,  of  course,  a  sixteenth  century  list. 
Z 


338     TASK  OF  THE  ELIZABETHAN  BISHOPS 

of  the  living.  It  is  strange,  however,  that  this  "  exility  "  was, 
in  the  majority  of  cases,  only  discovered  when  a  married 
clergy  was  allowed.1  The  Carlisle  return  2  is  meagre,  giving 
only  the  names  of  parishes,  and  whether  they  are  served  by 
vicars,  rectors,  or  curates.  In  all,  1 1 1  churches  and  chapels 
are  named ;  the  discrepancy  between  this  total  and  that 
given  above  being  accounted  for  by  the  inclusion  of  chapels 
of  ease.  The  number  of  householders  is  not  given,  nor  is 
any  information  afforded  as  to  what  cures  were  vacant. 
Bishop  Downham's  certificate  for  the  diocese  of  Chester3  is 
fuller.  From  it  may  be  gathered  that  the  Council's  letter 
was  dated  9th  July  1  563,  and  that  in  his  case  it  was  re- 
ceived on  25th  July.  The  Bishop  enumerates  432  churches 
and  chapels  serving  the  needs  of  47,212  households,  or  a 
population  (taking  as  a  basis  5  to  a  household)  of  236,060 
souls.  No  information,  however,  is  given  as  to  vacant  cures. 
The  Durham  certificate  4  was  forwarded  to  the  Council  on 
16th  August,  1563.  It  is  fairly  full,  as  it  furnishes  the 
names  of  the  incumbents ;  and  thus  it  becomes  possible  to 
trace  vacancies,  which  appear  to  have  been  but  six  in  all. 
The  presence  of  some  twenty-seven  Scotch  priests  is  speci- 
ally noted.  The  number  of  churches  and  chapels  enumer- 
ated is  201 ;  but  the  returns  as  to  households  are  incom- 
plete, 47  of  the  parishes  being  without  these  figures.  The 
rest  give  a  total  of  19,816,  or  a  population  of  99,080.  Strik- 
ing an  average  for  the  remainder,  the  number  of  souls  in 
the  diocese  may  be  conjectured  as  being  120,000.  Another 
return  "  of  vacant  livings,"  most  probably  made  in  1565, 
may  here  be  appealed  to.6  Only  three  are  noted  in  Dur- 
ham: Felton,  Kirkhaile,  and  North  Bailey  (Durham),  un- 
served for  four,  four,  and  seven  years  respectively.  The 
following  memorandum  tells  its  own  tale:  "  In  the  diocese 
of  Durham  .  .  .  the  parishes  be  great,  the  people  many, 

1  P.R.O.  Dom.  Eliz.,  Add.,  XII,  No.  108. 

2  Harl.  MS.  594,  No.  9,  f.  85. 

3  Ibid.,  594,  No.  10,  f.  89;  No.  11,  f.  97. 

4  Ibid.,  594,  No.  16,  f.  186. 

5  P.R.O.  Dom.  Eliz.,  Add.,  XII,  No.  108. 


STATISTICS  OF  NORTHERN  PROVINCE      339 

the  wages  small,  priests  bad  and  very  few  to  be  had,  and 
fewer  to  be  hoped  for." 

The  other  series  of  documents  to  which  appeal  is  here 
made  may  be  described  in  the  words  of  the  preface  with 
which  the  late  Miss  Bateson  introduced  them  to  the  Cam- 
den Society  for  which  she  edited  them.1  Speaking  of  these 
replies  sent  by  the  archbishops  and  bishops  to  questions 
put  to  them  by  the  Privy  Council  in  a  letter  of  17th  October, 
1564,  she  says:  "  This  letter  is  not  now  known  to  be  extant, 
but  from  the  answers  of  the  bishops  it  appears  that  they 
were  asked  to  classify  those  who  were  already  Justices  of 
the  Peace  according  as  they  were  favourable,  indifferent,  or 
hostile  to  the  proceedings  of  the  Government  in  matters  of 
religion,  and  also  to  name  the  persons  who  in  their  opinion 
were  fit  to  be  put  into  office,  and  those  who  should  be  re- 
moved from  office.  .  .  .  As  the  same  method  is  not  adopted 
by  each  bishop  it  is  difficult  to  tabulate  the  results  with 
accuracy;  roughly  estimated,  the  total  of  Justices  marked 
favourable  is  43 1 ;  marked  indifferent,  neuter,  or  not  favour- 
able, 264;  hinderers  or  adversaries,  157.2  The  dioceses  re- 
ported to  be  most  hostile  to  the  Government  were  those  of 
the  north  and  west;  Carlisle,  Durham,  York,  Worcester, 
Hereford  and  Exeter  were  strong  in  opposition.  Stafford- 
shire was  troubled  by  a  knot  of  'hinderers'  led  by  the 
Vernons,  and  in  Buckinghamshire  Sir  Robert  Drury,  Sir 
Robert  Peckham,  and  Sir  William  Dormer  were  the  leaders 
of  a  large  band  of  men  '  not  fit  to  be  trusted.'  Where  the 
towns  are  mentioned  these  are  found  to  be  in  nearly  every 
case  more  hostile  to  the  Government  than  the  counties. 
Newcastle-on-Tyne  alone  is  an  exception." 3  The  editor 
further  remarks  that  "  the  administrators  of  local  govern- 

1  1895.  Camden  Miscellany,  vol.  ix.  A  collection  of  Original  Letters 
from  the  Bishops  to  the  Privy  Council,  1 564,  with  returns  of 'the  fust  ices 
of  the  Peace  and  others  within  their  respective  dioceses,  classified  ac- 
cording to  their  religious  convictions. 

-  The  two  latter  categories  are  in  reality  but  one,  subdivided.  It 
maybe  said  therefore  that  there  were  431  "favourable"  to  421  "un- 
favourable." 

3  P.  iii. 


340     TASK  OF  THE  ELIZABETHAN  BISHOPS 

ment  are  here  classified  according  as  they  supported  or 
opposed  the  doctrines  of  the  Church  of  Rome;  the  bishops 
were  not  as  yet  concerned  to  exclude  the  advanced  re- 
formers from  office,  and  there  is  nothing  in  these  lists  to 
show  that  they  included  among  the  men  '  not  fit  to  be 
trusted '  any  persons  other  than  those  who  were  reputed  to 
have  leanings  towards  Roman  Catholicism."  x  Miss  Bateson 
pointed  out  that "  several  of  the  bishops  were  obliged  to  re- 
commend the  retention  of  the  services  of  men  who  were 
'  noted  adversaries  of  religion,'  either  by  reason  of  their  in- 
timate acquaintance  with  the  law,  or  because  they  could 
not  recommend  any  persons  as  fit  to  fill  their  places." - 
The  comment,  which  is  obvious  to  any  one  who  will  read 
these  letters,  is  also  made  that  "  the  remedies  for  disorders 
suggested  by  the  bishops  are  the  favourite  remedies  of  the 
time  and  show  no  originality;  they  recommend  those  in 
authority  to  receive  the  Communion  frequently  in  order  to 
set  a  good  example,  and  to  hear  sermons  and  discourses 
before  quarter-sessions  in  order  to  keep  their  religious  duties 
well  in  mind;  oaths  cannot  be  too  frequently  administered 
to  suspected  persons  and  to  those  in  authority." 3 

Archbishop  Young  forwarded  a  detailed  list  of  Justices 
according  to  Ridings,  etc.;  it  is  well  to  notice  that  several 
of  the  "  favourers  "  hold  office  in  more  than  one  locality, 
and  hence  the  names  recur  more  than  once ;  but  the  total 
number  of  "favourers"  is  even  thus  only  58,  against  50 
"  no  favourers."  The  return  for  the  county  of  Cheshire 
is  particularly  well  tabulated  and  is  very  full,  being  a  model 
in  that  respect:  summarised,  it  names  22  only  as  "  favour- 
able" as  against  42  "not  favourable."  Bishop  Pilkington, 
writing  about  his  See  of  Durham,  mentions  that  "  My 
Lord  of  Bedford  says  that  within  his  charge  there  is 
never  a  Justice  of  the  Peace,  nor  none  that  he  can  recom- 
mend as  meet  for  that  purpose."  As  regards  Northumber- 
land he  reports  about  Sir  R.  Ellercar  that  he  "  is  a  very 
Papist  and  altogether  unlearned,"  he  "  mislikes  "  Thomas 
Bates,  and  "doubts"  Sir  J.  Mitforde.  He  commends  as 
1  P.  h.  2  P.  iv.  3  P.  vi. 


STATISTICS  OF  NORTHERN  PROVINCE      341 

passable  the  mayor  and  ten  aldermen  of  Newcastle-on-Tyne, 
who  were  all  ex  officio  Justices  of  the  Peace ;  and  concerning 
his  own  "  Bishopric  "  of  Durham  he  reports  29  favourers, 
15  "indifferent,"  and  2  hinderers.  He  also  mentions  14 
who  "  live  quietly  and  obey  the  laws,"  but  an  inspection  of 
the  list  proves  that  several  of  them  were  well-known 
Catholics  all  their  lives.  "  John  Swynborne  kept  a  priest 
to  say  him  Mass,  but  he  has  paid  his  fine  for  it."  Finally, 
the  Bishop  points  out  that  "  there  be  two  other  things  in 
my  opinion  which  hinder  religion  here  much.  The  Scottish 
priests  l  that  are  fled  out  of  Scotland  for  their  wickedness 
and  here  be  hired  in  parishes  on  the  borders  because  they 
take  less  wages  than  other,  and  do  more  harm  than  other 
would  or  could  in  dissuading  the  people.  I  have  done  my 
diligence  to  avoid  them,  but  it  is  above  my  power.  The 
other  thing  is  the  great  number  of  scholars  born  here 
about,  now  lying  at  Louvain  without  licence,  and  sending 
in  books  and  letters  which  cause  many  times  evil  rumours 
to  be  spread  and  disquiet  the  people.  They  be  maintained 
by  the  hospitals  of  the  Newcastle  and  the  wealthiest  of 
that  town  and  this  shire,  as  it  is  judged,  and  be  their  near 
cousins." ' 

John  Best,  the  Bishop  of  Carlisle,  who,  as  has  been  shown 
before/  was,  to  say  the  least,  timorous  for  the  safety  of  his 
own  person,  again  owns  that "  with  men  of  contrary  religion 
I  durst  have  no  conference";  but  by  consulting  certain 
"  grave,  witty  men,  good  in  religion  as  favourers  of  the 
policy  of  the  realm  now  established,"  he  arrived  at  the  fol- 
lowing conclusions.  In  Westmoreland,  "  such  are  suffered 
to  pass  through  the  country  unapprehended  as  talk  at  their 
pleasure  and  some  have  in  the  wild  mountains  preached  in 
chapels.  The  Queen's  receivers  and  other  officers  of  the 
lower  sort,  being  not  good  themselves,  discourage  often 
such  as  dare  not  displease  them.  And  to  speak  plainly  to 
your  honours,  the  noblemen's  tenants  in  this  country  dare 

1  Like  those  already  referred  to,  p.  338  ante.  ~  P.  67. 

r>  Cf.  P.R.O.  Dom.  Eliz.,  xvin,  No.  21,  19th  July,  1561 ;  xxi,  No.  13, 

i^th  January,  1 561-2. 


342     TASK  OF  THE  ELIZABETHAN  BISHOPS 

not  be  known  to  favour  that  way  for  fear  of  loss  of  their 
farmholds.  And  finally,  the  Justices  of  Assize  which,  only 
making  a  good  face  of  religion  in  giving  of  the  charge,  in 
all  other  their  talks  and  doings  show  themselves  not  favour- 
able towards  any  man  or  cause  of  religion." '  He  then 
points  out  that,  in  his  diocese,  of  twenty  Justices  of  the 
Peace,  twelve  are  "  not  good  "  or  "evil,"  or  "  to  be  reformed  " 
in  religion,  and  eight  only,  including  himself,  are  of  good 
religion  and  to  be  continued  in  office;  while  he  suggests 
the  names  of  thirteen  as  fit  to  be  put  into  the  commission. 
The  evidence  which  has  been  brought  together  points  to 
the  fact  that  in  the  Northern  Province,  at  least  up  to  the 
end  of  1580,  it  can  hardly  be  maintained  that  the  Eliza- 
bethan settlement  was  either  welcomed  by  the  people,  or 
that  they  were  "weary  of  superstition,"  or  that  "the  num- 
ber of  staunch  Romanists  was  very  small." 

1  P-  49- 


Emery  Walker  photo, ,] 


[Lambeth  Patau 


MATTHEW  PARKER 

FIRST  ARCHBISHOP  OF  CANTERBURY  CONSECRATED  KV 
THE  EDWARDIXE  ORDINAL 


Reproduced  by  kind  permission  of  the  Archbishop  of  Canter! /try 


CHAPTER  IX 

THE  TASK  OF  THE  ELIZABETHAN  BISHOPS 

II. —  The  Southern  Province 

THE  preface  to  the  Camden  Society's  edition  of  the 
Bishops'  Letters  written  in  1564,  already  put  under 
contribution  in  these  pages,  says  that  in  the  Southern  Pro- 
vince, "  Worcester,  Hereford  and  Exeter  were  strong  in 
opposition"  to  the  Elizabethan  settlement  of  religion.  In 
this  present  survey  of  the  dioceses,  with  a  view  to  keeping 
some  sort  of  geographical  order,  before  commencing  with 
these  English  Sees  and  so  working  gradually  towards  Lon- 
don and  the  primatial  See  of  Canterbury,  the  reader  is  in- 
vited to  study  the  problem  as  it  exhibited  itself  in  Wales. 
In  Elizabeth's  days  that  portion  of  her  dominions,  now  a 
stronghold  of  Nonconformity,  was  then  also  in  opposition 
to  the  State  religion ;  then  from  a  spirit  of  conservatism,  as 
now  of  radicalism.  How  the  change  has  come  about  need 
not  here  be  discussed,  for  it  is  outside  the  purpose  of  these 
pages.  It  is,  however,  interesting  to  note,  and  having  noted, 
to  pass  on. 

As  a  background  for  the  picture  that  can  be  painted  out 
of  the  material  furnished  by  the  many  letters  of  the  bishops 
still  existing,  it  may  be  useful  to  take  a  survey  of  bishops' 
certificates  of  their  dioceses  which  were  made  and  returned 
early  in  Elizabeth's  reign. 

On  1 8th  November,  1560,  the  Archbishop  of  Canterbury 
wrote  to  Anthony  Kitchin,  Bishop  of  Llandaff,  requiring 
him  to  make  a  return  of  much  the  same  information  as  three 
years  later  was  demanded  of  all  the  bishops  by  the  Privy 
Council.  Amongst  the  various  questions,however,one  stands 
343 


344    TASK  OF  THE  ELIZABETHAN  BISHOPS 

out  strangely,  requiring  as  it  does  a  list  of  incumbents  who 
were  neither  priests  nor  deacons!  The  answers  to  the  Arch- 
bishop's queries l  were  sent  by  Bishop  Kitchin  on  20th 
January,  1 560-1.  Two  of  the  prebendaries  and  a  parish 
rector  proved  to  be  merely  laymen.  Twelve  out  of  thirteen 
prebendaries  were  not  resident ;  some  were  in  their  parishes ; 
some  living  out  of  the  diocese;  one  was  at  Oxford  at  his 
studies;  and  the  lay  rector  referred  to  was  also  a  student 
at  Christ  Church,  Oxford.  Though  the  Douay  list  of 
dioceses  gives  Llandaff  177  parishes,  Anthony  Kitchin 
enumerated  only  141,  including  the  prebends;  of  these 
parishes,  25  had  incumbents  who  were  non-resident,  many 
of  them  pursuing  their  studies  at  Oxford ;  11  of  the  incum- 
bents were  pluralists,  and  1 1  of  the  parishes  were  certified 
to  be  void. 

A  further  return  was  made  by  Kitchin  on  4th  August, 
1 563,  in  compliance  with  the  Privy  Council's  letters,  received 
on  28th  July."  This  document  enumerates  222  churches 
and  chapels,  thus  accentuating  the  discrepancies  already 
pointed  out.  The  number  of  households  was  not  there 
given,  being  promised  later,  but  the  incumbents'  names  are, 
in  most  cases,  set  down.  The  number  of  void  livings  was 
stated  as  being  fourteen,  one  of  which,  however,  was  being 
served  by  a  curate. 

Rowland  Meyrick  forwarded  the  certificate  for  his  bishop- 
ric of  Bangor  on  13th  August,  1 563-3  This  document  may 
be  summarised  by  merely  giving  its  figures.  There  were 
116  parish  churches  and  72  chapels,  or  188  in  all,  in  this 
differing  from  the  Douay  list,  which  gives  a  total  of  107. 
These  were  served  by  82  parsons,  26  vicars,  and  59  curates 
— 167  in  all.  The  method  resorted  to  by  Meyrick  makes  it 
difficult  to  say  how  many  void  livings  there  were;  only  six 
instances  are  specially  noted.  The  number  of  households 
was  put  down  as  7,068,  representing  a  population  of  about 
35,340. 

1  Cf.  Harl.  MS.  7049,  No.  23,  f.  575. 

-  Cf.  ibid.,  595,  No.  2,  f.  10. 

3  Cf.  ibid.,  594,  No.  2,  f.  17 ;  No.  3,  f.  29. 


ST.  ASAPH'S  345 

The  information  to  be  gathered  about  the  diocese  of 
St.  David's  is  contained  in  two  separate  papers:  (a)  Harl. 
MS.  595,  ff.  80-4,  of  28th  July,  1563;  and  {b)  Harl.  MS. 
595>  ff-  79  and  85-92,  of  1 2th  October,  1563,  which  have 
been  mixed  up  in  binding.  Comparing  these  two  returns, 
the  resultant  details  appear  to  be  317  churches  and  130 
chapels1  serving  24,161  households,  or  an  estimated  popu- 
lation of  120,805.  Nine  only  of  the  parishes  are  specifically 
stated  to  be  void;  but  from  the  terms  of  the  Bishop's 
covering  letter,  this  item  cannot  be  altogether  accurate,  for 
it  is  pointed  out  "  that  some  one  curate  (for  lack  of  suffi- 
cient number  of  ministers  and  for  lack  of  living),  sometime 
serveth  two  or  three  cures  next  adjoining." 

Finally,  we  have  the  return  for  the  diocese  of  St.  Asaph's, 
made  by  its  Bishop,  Thomas  Davies,  on  18th  August, 
1 563.'  This  list  was  carefully  drawn  up,  with  the  names  of 
incumbents,  but  without  the  number  of  households.  Most 
of  the  livings,  125  in  number,3  had  vicars  or  curates.  The 
returns  concerning  Justices  of  the  Peace  in  1564  are  not 
of  much  use  for  Wales,  as  only  Llandaff  is  represented. 
Kitchin,  too,  was  then  dead,  so  it  fell  to  Archbishop 
Parker,  during  the  vacancy,  to  forward  the  required  in- 
formation. The  Archbishop  gives  the  names  of  eleven  for 
Glamorganshire  and  six  for  Monmouthshire  as  worthy  of 
commendation  and  trust,  under  the  cover  of  a  sub-acid 
letter,  plainly  showing  his  own  dislike  of  such  inquisitions: 
"  Sir,  I  send  your  honour  the  names  of  such  as  be  com- 
mended to  me  in  these  shires;  what  these  be,  and  what 
others  be,  your  honours  of  the  Council  know  much  better 
than  we  can  inform  you ;  and  as  for  myself,  I  know  them 
not,  and  sometime  informers  serve  their  own  turn  and 
gratify  their  friends." 4 

Bishop  Richard  Davies,  of  St.  David's,  wrote  to  Cecil  on 
30th  January,   1565-6,  and  said  he  had  heard  "that  one 

1  Compare  this  with  the  Douay  list  giving  308. 

-  Harl.  MS.  594,  No.  1,  f.  1. 

:'  Douay  list  names  12 1. 

1  Letters,  etc.,  1564,  p.  81. 


346     TASK  OF  THE  ELIZABETHAN  BISHOPS 

Mr.  Hughes  sueth  for  Llandaff,  a  man  to  me  unknown."  If 
he  be  the  same  who,  in  1573,  was  made  Bishop  of  St. 
Asaph,  it  does  not  speak  well  for  the  standard  of  choice, 
for  Bishop  Davies  proceeded  to  say  that  "  by  divers  I  have 
heard  of  him  that  he  is  utterly  unlearned  in  divinity,  and 
not  able  to  render  a  reason  of  his  faith";  hence  he  begs 
that  such  an  incompetent  man  may  not  be  put  "  in  that 
place  that  of  all  other  places  in  England,  hath  of  long  time 
most  lacked  good  doctrine  and  true  knowledge  of  God,  and 
where  in  matters  of  religion,  no  reformation  or  redress  hath 
been  since  the  time  of  the  Queen's  Majesty's  visitation."  ' 
This  may  very  well  be  true  of  the  diocese  presided  over  by 
Anthony  Kitchin,  said  to  have  been  "  the  calamity  of  his 
See." 

A  year  after  his  appointment  to  the  See  of  Bangor  (1 566), 
Nicholas  Robinson  thus  described  to  Cecil  the  state  of  his 
charge.  As  regards  Caernarvon,  Anglesey,  and  Merioneth, 
he  says  the  inhabitants  "  live  in  much  obedience."  That 
regarded  their  civil  allegiance.  In  matters  of  religion,  how- 
ever, there  was  a  different  tale  to  tell.  "  But  touching  the 
Welsh  people's  receiving  of  the  Gospel,"  he  said,  "  I  find  by- 
small  experience  amongst  them  here,  that  ignorance  con- 
tinueth  many  in  the  dregs  of  superstition,  which  did  grow 
chiefly  upon  the  blindness  of  the  clergy  joined  with  greedi- 
ness of  getting  in  so  bare  a  country,  and  also  upon  the 
closing  up  of  God's  Word  from  them  in  an  unknown 
tongue;  of  the  which  harms  though  the  one  be  remedied 
by  the  great  benefit  of  our  gracious  Queen  and  Parliament, 
yet  the  other  remaineth  without  hope  of  redress,  for  the 
most  part  of  the  priests  are  too  old  (they  say)  now  to  be 
put  to  school.  Upon  this  inability  to  teach  God's  Word 
(for  there  are  not  six  that  can  preach  in  these  three  shires), 
I  have  found  since  I  came  to  this  country  images  and 
altars  standing  in  churches  undefaced ;  lewd  and  indecent 
vigils  and  watches  observed  ;  much  pilgrimage-going,  many 
candles  set  up  to  the  honour  of  saints,  some  relics  yet  car- 
ried about,  and  all  the  countries  full  of  beads  and  knots 
1  Cf.  Lansd.  MS.  8,  No.  75- 


BANGOR  347 

besides  divers  other  monuments  of  wilful  serving  of  God."  ' 
Determined  as  he  was  to  eradicate  these  "  dregs  of  super- 
stition," he  severely  punished  any  manifestation  of  Popery 
when  he  came  across  it.  Thus  on  24th  May,  1570,  he  gave 
the  Privy  Council  details  of  the  action  he  had  taken  against 
the  clergy  of  Beaumaris  for  a  "  disordered  service  over  the 
corpse  of  one  Lewis  Roberts,"  adding  that  he  had  preached 
"  against  such  faithless  prayers  "  and  that  he  "  openly  for- 
bade all  prayers  and  ceremonies  over  the  dead  not  author- 
ised by  law."2  Ten  years  later,  in  response  to  the  Council's 
desire  for  a  return  of  recusants,  together  with  a  valuation 
of  their  wealth,  he  wrote  to  the  Bishop  of  Worcester,  and 
considered  himself  justified  in  saying  that  "  I  have  made 
diligent  search,  and  at  this  present  can  find  none  that  re- 
fuseth  to  come  to  the  church,  saving  one  old  priest,  called 
Humphrey  Barker  .  .  .  who  being  a  very  poor  man  hath 
no  goods  that  be  known."  However,  he  knew  of  certain 
gentry  and  yeoman,  who  previous  to  that  same  year  used 
to  conform,  yet  "  were  detected  to  have  withdrawn  them- 
selves and  their  families  from  the  time  of  Lent  afore."  He 
had  argued  with  them  and  hoped  to  hear  of  their  submis- 
sion, but  could  not  state  the  certainty  of  it  at  the  date  of 
writing.3 

The  value  of  the  above  statement  about  the  general  con- 
formity of  the  diocese  was  not  long  after  discounted  by  a 
letter  despatched  by  the  Privy  Council  to  Bishop  Robin- 
son/ wherein  he  is  instructed  to  make  secret  search  in 
several  houses  duly  specified,  in  order  to  find  papers  im- 
plicating the  owners  with  one  Hugh  Owen  fled  abroad. 
The  Bishop's  answer,  dated  24th  March,  1577-8,  shows  that 
however  much  he  had  tried  to  observe  the  secrecy  enjoined 
by  the  Council,  news  had  leaked  out  about  the  commis- 
sion he  had  received,  clearly  showing  the  hidden  sympathy 
of  some  apparently  loyal  official,  "insomuch  that  at  our 

1  P.R.O.  Dom.  Eliz.,  xliv,  No.  27,  7th  October,  1567. 

-  Ibid.,  lxix,  No.  14. 

:i  Cf.  ibid.,  cxvin,  No.  8,  3rd  November,  1577- 

1  Ibid.,  CXXlll,  No.  1,  2nd  March,  1577-8. 


348     TASK  OF  THE  ELIZABETHAN  BISHOPS 

present  search  now  made,  some  of  their  wives  reported  the 
same,  and  as  it  is  reported,  if  any  such  Papistry  or  letters 
were  in  their  said  houses,  they  caused  the  same  to  be  taken 
away  and  either  turned  or  conveyed  to  other  secret  places."  l 
And  so  in  this  instance  a  carefully  laid  trap  miscarried,  and 
the  Bishop  was  only  able  to  send  up  records  about  abbey 
and  chantry  and  other  concealed  lands  which  he  had  been 
able  to  seize,  as  also  some  other  papers,  in  which  he  sur- 
mised "  that  there  is  meant  some  other  thing  than  is  writ- 
ten, and  that  they  use  some  strange  and  dark  phrase  of 
writing  that  the  same  their  letters  might  not  be  under- 
standed  to  such  as  should  read  the  same."  He  further 
pointed  out  that  "  there  be  no  subscription  unto  some  of  the 
same,  and  as  we  take  it,  that  is  done  of  policy  lest  the  letters 
should  be  opened  or  read  in  the  carrying  by  the  way." 

Thomas  Davies  replaced  Goldwell,  the  last  Catholic 
Bishop  of  St.  Asaph's,  after  his  deprivation  and  flight  to 
the  continent.  Very  little  is  heard  of  this  prelate.  But  on 
16th  November,  1570,  he  wrote  to  Cecil  asking  for  further 
assistance  in  the  shape  of  a  commission  of  visitation,  on  the 
grounds  that  "  having  reduced  my  diocese  to  a  better  order 
and  reformation  than  I  found  it,  as  well  in  good  and  godly 
religion  as  life,  and  yet  perceiving  a  number  of  wilful  and 
incorrigible  persons  of  evil  life  and  corrupt  religion  to  re- 
main and  escape  my  hands  unreformed  and  punished 
within  my  said  diocese,  not  only  by  the  weakness  of  my 
ecclesiastical  authority," 2  but  also  by  the  remissness  of  his 
officials,  he  needed  external  help.  It  is  clear  from  another 
short  letter  to  Cecil,  written  on  the  following  27th  January," 
that  his  prayer  was  granted ;  but  a  veil  falls  over  the  sub- 
sequent proceedings  and  their  results.  In  1577,  when  the 
enquiry  was  afoot  as  to  the  number  of  recusants,  William 
Hughes,  the  successor  of  Thomas  Davies,  who  had  died  in 
1573,  reported  to  Whitgift,  then  Bishop  of  Worcester,  that 
he  "  can  understand  of  none  ...  so  refusing  or  neglecting 
to  come  to  the  church  and  hear  divine  service  in  such  wise 

1  P.R.O.  Dom.  Eliz.,  cxxm,  No.  11.  2  Ibid.,  LXXIV,  No.  37. 

3  Ibid.,  lxxvii,  No.  8. 


ST.  DAVID'S  349 

as  by  the  Queen's  Majesty's  Injunctions  and  laws  is  limited 
and  appointed." '  With  this  cautious  and  guarded  reply, 
and  a  promise  to  report  any  recusants  whom  he  might  hear 
of  later,  St.  Asaph's  passes  out  of  view. 

St.  David's,  in  South  Wales,  does  not  come  before  us  in 
documentary  form  till  1 569-70 ;  but  on  2  5thjanuary,  1 569-70, 
Richard  Davies  answered  the  Council's  letters  of  6th  Nov- 
ember, 1569,  dealing  with  the  ever-recurring  theme  of 
administering  the  oath  of  Supremacy  to  the  Justices  of 
the  Peace.  The  matter  was  then  of  supreme  importance, 
owing  to  the  disaffection  in  the  North  just  then  breaking 
out  into  open  revolt.  A  few  days  earlier,  a  detailed  list  of 
174  subscribers  from  all  the  counties  of  Wales  was  sent  up; 
amongst  these  are  the  names  of  several  whose  religion  was 
undoubtedly  Catholic.  The  turn  which  events  took  in  the 
north,  however,  must  have  allayed  all  scruples,  and  it  can- 
not be  doubted  that  most  of  the  Welsh  Justices  signed: 
there  is  no  evidence  that  any  refused,  except  in  the  case  of 
the  notorious  Sir  Edward  Stradling."  Bishop  Richard 
Davies  also  sent  up  a  detailed  and  minute  report.3  In  this 
interesting  document,  he  asks  the  Council  "  to  consider  all 
the  spiritual  sores  and  diseases  of  the  diocese  and  to 
remedy  the  same  according  to  your  godly  wisdoms."  He 
certifies  that  he  cannot  find  anyone  refusing  church  ser- 
vices or  sacraments:  "notwithstanding  that,  I  perceive  a 
great  number  to  be  slow  and  cold  in  the  true  service  of 
God.  Some  careless  for  any  religion,  and  some  that  wish 
the  Romish  religion  again."  Certainly,  one  of  his  canons, 
William  Luson,  who  was  not  only  archdeacon  of  Car- 
marthen, but  also  a  canon  of  Hereford,  was,  at  the  latter 
place,  and  many  years  later  than  this,  clearly  a  Catholic,4 
though  the  Bishop  of  St.  David's  does  not  appear  to  have 
suspected  it  at  this  time.    The  "  Disorders  in  the  Diocese  " 

1  P.R.O.  Dom.  Eliz.,  cxvm,  No.  10,  4th  November,  1577. 

2  Cf.  ibid.,  lxvi,  No.  19,  22nd  January,  1569-70,  as  also  all  the 
13  enclosures. 

3  Ibid.,  LXVI,  No.  26,  and  enclosure  26  i. 

4  Cf.  Downside  Review,  vol.  vi,  p.  54,  and  Egerton.  MS.  1693,  f.  81. 


350     TASK  OF  THE  ELIZABETHAN  BISHOPS 

which  he  enumerates  form  a  curious  commentary  on  the 
alleged  entire  conformity  in  St.  Asaph's;  and  also  it  con- 
firms the  obstinate  spirit  exhibited  amongst  the  magis- 
trates. "  There  be  in  the  diocese  more  than  two  hundred 
persons  vicious  livers  that  have  remained  excommunicated, 
some  a  twelve  month,  some  two  years,  some  three,  and 
some  four  years  and  more."  The  remedy  suggested  sounds 
strange  to  modern  ears:  "  men  of  a  right  judgment  in  re- 
ligion and  uncorrupt  conscience  ...  to  have  authority  to 
apprehend  excommunicate  persons,  to  imprison  them  or 
otherwise  compel  them  to  reconciliation  and  amendment  of 
life  ...  to  imprison  also,  make  irregular,  and  deprive 
priests  incorrigible.  To  punish  pilgrimages  to  wells,  and 
watchings  in  chapels  and  desert  places.  To  call  before 
them  the  supporters  and  bearers  of  superstition  and  idolatry, 
etc."  That  this  was  not  altogether  unnecessary  may  be 
gathered  from  a  sentence  in  the  Injunctions  issued  as  late 
as  1583  by  Middleton,  Bishop  of  St.  David's.  "  Item  that 
altars  and  rood  lofts  may  be  pulled  down  and  utterly  de- 
faced .  .  .  for  as  yet,  they  stand  in  most  churches  little  or 
nothing  blemished."  Further,  "  whereas  heretofore  in  sun- 
dry places,  it  hath  been  a  foolish  use  amongst  a  sort  of 
ignorant  blind  priests  that  .  .  .  they  would  take  the  bread 
and  wine  in  their  hands,  lift  it  up  and  show  it  unto  the 
people;  whereupon  hath  ensued  horrible  idolatries  and  re- 
ligious adoration  of  the  Sacraments  themselves,  or  rather  of 
the  bread  and  wine,  as  by  kneeling,  knocking  of  the  breast, 
lifting  up  of  hands,  closing  of  their  eyes  with  the  finger  and 
the  thumb.    For  the  avoiding  whereof  it  is  decreed,  etc."  l 

The  enquiry  set  on  foot  by  the  Privy  Council  in  1577 
produced  a  letter  from  the  Bishop  of  St.  David's  to  Whit- 
gift  of  Worcester,  wherein  occur  these  passages :  "  howso- 
ever some  be  affected  in  heart  and  infected  with  Papistry, 
yet  can  I  understand  of  none  that  refuseth  to  come  to  the 
church,  saving  only  one  .  .  .  he  is  a  very  poor  man.  There 
is  one  libertine  sometimes  in  my  diocese  .  .  .  which  although 
he  detest  both  Papistry  and  also  the  religion  now  established 
1  Second  Report,  Ritual  Commission,  1868,  App.  E,  pp.  426-7. 


LLANDAFF  351 

in  the  Church  of  England,  yet  doth  he  not  refuse  to  come 
to  the  church;  for  one  property  of  that  sect  is  that  they 
think  it  lawful  for  them  to  dissimule." '  Bishop  Davies  got 
into  a  heated  personal  controversy  with  Fabian  Phillips 
some  time  after  this;  and  in  a  self-exculpatory  letter 
written  24th  July,  1579,  to  Lord  Burghley,  complains  that 
his  adversary's  attempts  to  discredit  him  tended  "  to  the 
great  encouragement  of  such  as  in  that  town  [Carmarthen] 
yet  remain  inclined  to  Papistry."  An  enclosure  accompany- 
ing this  letter  contains  a  sad  admission  on  the  Bishop's  part 
as  to  the  immorality  then  prevalent  in  his  diocese.  "  But 
for  whoredom  indeed,  it  is  so  frequent  in  my  diocese,  that 
lamentable  it  is  to  hear  .  .  .  there  be  in  my  diocese  put  to 
open  penance  .  .  .  five  hundred  persons  every  year."2 

When  Anthony  Kitchin  died  in  1563,  the  diocese  of 
Llandaff,  a  very  poor  one,  remained  vacant  till  1566,  when 
Hugh  Jones  was  appointed.  We  hear  nothing  of  him  till 
his  reply  to  the  Privy  Council's  enquiries  as  to  the  state  of 
the  dioceses,  issued  6th  November,  1569.  His  answer,  dated 
26th  January,  1569-70,  gives  an  assurance  that  he  had 
"  diligently  and  carefully  .  .  .  from  time  to  time  travelled 
.  .  .  throughout  [his]  said  diocese,  making  diligent  inquisi- 
tion of  the  estate  and  conformity  of  the  people  .  .  .  and 
by  preaching  and  teaching  and  other  good  means  have 
reformed  all  such  disorders  as  I  found  or  could  come  to  the 
knowledge  of.  .  .  .  And  concerning  the  resorting  of  the 
people  to  the  church  to  the  Common  Prayers,  I  find  none 
disobedient.  And  as  touching  the  receiving  of  the  Com- 
munion, I  find  every  man  obedient  saving  .  .  .  two  [who] 
have  not  received  .  .  .  this  three  years  last  past,  because 
(as  they  say)  they  cannot  frame  themselves  as  yet  to  be  in 
charity  "  3  This  quaint  excuse  may  be  found  resorted  to  not 
infrequently,  in  different  parts  of  England :  it  served  as  well 
as  any  other  to  stave  off  the  evil  day  of  enforced  outward 
conformity.  Hugh  Jones  died  in  1 574,  and  William  Blethyn 
succeeded  him  in  the  following  year,  and  duly  certified  to 

1  P.R.O.  Dom.  Eliz.,  cxvin,  No.  11,  enclosure  i,  28th  October,  1577. 

2  Ibid.,  CXXXI,  No.  42.  3  Ibid.,  lxvi,  No.  29. 


352     TASK  OF  THE  ELIZABETHAN  BISHOPS 

Bishop  Whitgift  in  1577,  the  state  of  his  diocese,  and  for- 
warded a  list  of  some  twenty  persons  "  all  obstinate  and 
rich,  able  to  pay  their  charges  and  good  fines,  besides  their 
corporal  punishments,"  including  a  Justice  of  the  Peace,  a 
schoolmaster,  and  George  Morysse,  "  who  did  refuse  his 
livings  for  that  he  would  not  subscribe."  These  he  singles 
out  for  the  Council  to  "  punish  them  according  to  their  de- 
merits," and  as  a  consequence  he  "  would  trust  that  the  rest 
being  in  number  about  200  besides  them  would  rather  come 
and  submit  themselves."  !  The  difference  between  the  "none 
save  two  "  of  1 570  and  the  more  than  200  of  1 577  will  doubt- 
less not  be  lost  on  the  reader.  Most  of  the  names  occurring 
in  the  above  return  are  repeated  in  a  subsequent  one  dated 
3rd  February  1 577-8  ;2  but  the  amended  detail  is  given 
about  Morysse  that  he  was  "  M.A.  and  a  preacher  in  Queen 
Mary's  days,  who  did  forsake  his  living  for  his  Romish 
religion  &c,  and  hath  neither  lands  nor  goods."  Just  a  year 
later,  in  consequence  of  receiving  a  further  commission  "  for 
the  apprehension  of  popish  and  Massing  priests,"  feeling 
that  his  honour  was  touched,  and  "  lest  (he)  should  be 
thought  negligent  herein,"  he  reminded  Walsingham  of  the 
above  two  returns  "  of  all  Papists  notoriously  known  within 
my  diocese  and  to  whose  houses  they  repaired  for  their 
maintenance  "  and  then  entered  on  a  full  account  of  the  pro- 
ceedings of  George  Morris  [Morysse],  as  above.3  The  point 
of  the  letter  lies  in  this,  that  it  makes  it  clear  that  twenty 
years  after  the  parliamentary  change  of  religion,  and  after  it 
had  been  certified  that  Papistry  had  been  practically  extin- 
guished in  Wales,  we  are  afforded  practical  proof,  not  only 
of  the  presence  of  priests,  who  had  evidently  been  at  work 
all  that  time  secretly ;  but  that,  of  necessity,  they  had  had 
"  maintainers,"  supporters,  followers,  and  sympathisers. 

Such  a  conclusion  not  only  prepares  the  way  for  the 
following  documents,  it  also  shows  that  the  action  taken  by 
the  Privy  Council  was,  from  the  point  of  view  of  the  reform- 
ing   party  and   of  the  notions  of  the  time,  a  necessity. 

1  P.R.O.  Dom.  Eliz.,  cxvin,  No.  11,  enclosure  ii,  25th  October,  1577- 

2  Ibid.,  cxxn,  No.  31.     3  Ibid.,  cxxix,  No.  30,  3rd  February,  1578-9- 


WALES  353 

Nevertheless  practical  proof  is  given,  if  proof  were  needed, 
in  an  official  and  State  document,  that  the  efforts  to  crush 
out  Catholicism  had  been  futile,  and  up  to  1580  had  met 
with  failure.  Richard  Prise,  writing  to  Lord  Burghley  on 
31st  January,  1575-6,  gave  him,  from  the  reformers'  point 
of  view,  but  a  sorry  account  of  the  evil  state  of  religion  in 
Wales.  "  The  people,"  he  says,  "...  do  still  in  heaps,  go 
on  pilgrimage  to  the  wonted  wells  and  places  of  superstition, 
and  in  the  nights,  after  the  feasts,  when  the  old  offerings 
were  used  to  be  kept,  at  any  idol's  chapel,  albeit  the  churches 
be  pulled  down,  yet  do  they  come  to  the  place  where  the 
church  or  chapel  was,  by  great  journeys  barefoot,  very 
superstitiously,  &c.  .  .  .  near  generally  all  dare  to  profess 
and  maintain  [Popery]." ' 

An  undated  paper,2  but  belonging  to  about  1580,  amongst 
other  complaints  contained  in  it  levelled  against  the  in- 
habitants of  North  Wales,  points  out  that  "  Truly  at  this 
day,  if  you  look  thoroughly  to  the  whole  number  of  gentle- 
men and  others  of  all  sorts  in  North  Wales,  ye  shall  scarcely 
find  any  (the  bishops  and  some  few  others  excepted)  yet  in 
any  sort  well  instructed  in  the  faith  of  Christ ;  for  of  the 
whole  multitude,  such  which  be  under  thirty  years  of  age 
[z'.e.,  born  in  and  after  1550]  seem  to  have  no  show  of  any 
religion;  the  others  well  near  generally  all  dare  to  profess 
and  to  maintain  the  absurdest  points  of  popish  heresy, 
according  to  which  knowledge  (most  lamentable  to  be 
spoken)  the  greatest  number  of  them  do  frame  their  lives 
in  looseness,  licentiousness,  contention  and  other  such  like." 
In  June,  1579,  Instructions  were  drawn  up  by  the  Privy 
Council  for  the  guidance  of  the  Council  of  the  Marches  of 
Wales.  This  lengthy  document  came  into  being  because 
the  Queen  "  hath  been  to  her  great  grief  given  to  under- 
stand that  .  .  .  through  lack  of  good  teaching  and  negligence 
of  the  clergy,  certain  evil  disposed  persons  being  sent  from 
Rome  and  termed  Reconcilers,  have  crept  among  her  High- 
ness's  subjects  of  those  parts  and  seduced  many  of  them 
from  the  true  religion."    Hence,  after  enquiries  to  be  made 

1  Ellis,  Original  Letters,  vi,  pp.  41-50.        2  Lansd.  MS.  Ill,  No.  4. 
A  A 


by  them  as  to  the  number,  competency,  and  assiduity  of 
the  "  preachers,"  further  points  of  enquiry  are  indicated, 
such  as :  "  whether  divers  of  the  best  benefices  are  not 
bestowed  upon  children  under  colour  of  finding  [i.e.,  sup- 
porting] of  them  in  the  Universities;  or  else  upon  persons 
not  admitted  to  the  ministry;  and  how  many  benefices  have 
been  bestowed  upon  gentlemen  and  other  laymen."  After 
other  clear  indications  of  the  existence  of  grave  irregularities 
within  the  Establishment  itself,  subjects  more  germane  to 
the  present  survey  present  themselves.  "  Whether  there 
have  not  been  in  any  of  those  parts  certain  disguised 
persons,  or  otherwise,  who  under  the  colour  of  being  school- 
masters, physicians,  surgeons,  serving  men  and  such  like, 
have  dispersed  abroad  many  Bulls  from  the  Bishop  of  Rome, 
Agnes  [sic]  Dei,  Beads,  Grains,  and  such  like  superstitious 
and  popish  stuff;  and  dissuaded  any  person  from  coming 
to  the  church  and  conforming  himself  to  the  religion  now 
established  .  .  .  who  have  been  the  harbourers,  receivers, 
maintainers  and  conveyers  away  of  any  such  persons.  .  .  . 
Whether  any  of  the  said  persons  or  other  whatsoever  have 
at  any  time  said  Mass  in  the  houses  of  any  such  receivers 
or  harbourers,  and  who  were  present  at  the  saying  of  the 
said  Mass.  .  .  .  Whether  any  person  or  persons  have  been 
by  such  disguised  persons  rebaptised  or  married  ;  by  whom 
and  in  whose  presence.  .  .  .  Whether  such  schoolmasters 
as  have  been  admitted  to  teach  children,  either  in  public 
places  or  in  private  houses,  have  been  duly  examined  of  the 
sincerity  of  their  doctrine  .  .  .  and  what  they  be  that  have 
been  otherwise  tolerated.  .  .  .  What  persons  within  these 
seven  years  past  have  been  in  the  parts  beyond  the  seas, 
unless  they  shall  be  known  to  be  merchants,  .  .  .  What 
persons  have  for  the  space  of  seven  years  last  past  willingly 
absented  themselves  from  coming  to  the  church.  .  .  .  Assure 
all  and  every  such  person  [so  offending  "  especially  of  the 
meaner  sort "]  that  they  shall  [on  submission  and  amend- 
ment] be  forborne  from  all  manner  of  further  punishment 
.  .  .  provided  always  that  unto  the  priests  and  others 
which  have  said  Mass,  or  otherwise  shall  be  found  principal 


WORCESTER  355 

offenders  and  ringleaders  of  the  rest  you  grant  no  such 
favour.  .  .  .  And  further,  whereas  among  some  other  par- 
ticular disorders  reported  to  be  daily  committed  in  those 
parts,  we  have  been  informed  that  the  people  hath  hereto- 
fore used  to  repair  in  great  numbers  unto  a  certain  Well  in 
the  county  of  Flint  called  St.  Winifred's  Well  after  a  super- 
stitious sort  and  manner  of  pilgrimage,  although  it  be  by 
some  coloured  to  be  for  the  water,  which  is  pretended  to  be 
medicinable,  which  we  notwithstanding  are  credibly  in- 
formed is  not,  you  shall  first  cause  a  substantial  trial  to  be 
made,  whether  the  said  well-water  be  medicinable  or  no. 
And  if  it  shall  fall  out  to  have  any  such  virtue,  then  .  .  . 
that  only  such  diseased  persons  be  admitted  to  the  use 
of  the  same  as  it  is  likely  may  thereby  be  cured;  and  that 
the  repair  of  such  great  confused  multitudes  of  others  be 
restrained.  But  if  it  shall  ...  be  found  not  to  have  any 
such  medicinable  quality  at  all,  but  only  to  have  been  fre- 
quented for  some  other  vain  and  superstitious  use,  then 
.  .  .  that  .  .  .  the  buildings  and  walls  of  the  said  well  or 
fountain  ...  be  defaced  and  taken  down  and  .  .  .  that  no 
such  repair  of  people  be  suffered  to  assemble  themselves 
there  under  any  such  pretext  or  colour  hereafter.  .  .  ." ' 

When  Henry  VIII  dissolved  the  monasteries  he  pre- 
served some  for  a  special  purpose,  refounding  them  as 
colleges  of  canons,  when  they  were  attached  to  existing 
cathedrals,  as  Canterbury,  Winchester,  Norwich,  and  Wor- 
cester. Others,  as  Carlisle  and  Peterborough,  he  erected 
into  cathedrals,  thus  increasing  the  traditional  number  of 
dioceses.  His  provisions  for  the  maintenance  of  the  fabrics 
and  for  the  observance  of  divine  service  were  carefully 
drawn  up  and  indentured.  Those  for  Worcester,  for  ex- 
ample, may  be  seen,  in  effect,  in  a  document  now  at  the 
Record  Office.2  They  there  appear  in  a  complaint  lodged 
that  already,  so  early  in  Elizabeth's  reign,  the  Chapter,  under 
the  new  regime  were  scandalously  unobservant  of  their  ob- 
ligations.   Moreover,  they  were  despoiling  the  goods  of  the 

1  Cotton  MS.  Vitellius  C.  I,  No.  12,  f.  118. 

2  P.R.O.  Dom.  Eliz.,  xxvm,  No.  35,  ?  April,  1563. 


356     TASK  OF  THE  ELIZABETHAN  BISHOPS 

church  for  their  own  personal  enrichment.  "  The  pipes  of 
a  great  pair  of  organs,  which  cost  £200  the  making,  being 
one  of  the  most  solemn  instruments  of  this  realm,"  says 
the  complaint  aforesaid,  "  are  molten  into  dishes,  and 
divided  amongst  the  prebendaries'  wives.  The  Case  hath 
made  bedsteads;  the  like  is  done  and  become  of  certain 
timber  and  wainscot  which  Queen  Mary  gave  for  the  new 
making  of  the  Choir.  The  silver  plate  is  divided  amongst 
the  said  prebendaries,  who  likewise  intend  [ed]  to  divide 
the  copes  and  ornaments,  and  had  so  done,  had  not  some 
of  them  being  unmarried,  resisted ;  sustaining  therefor  the 
displeasure  of  some  of  their  fellows,  being  married."  The 
great  steeple,  "  called  the  leaden  steeple,"  and  the  Charnel 
House,  "  the  lead  whereof  is  worth  £600,  were  lately 
appointed  to  be  pulled  down  ...  if  order  to  the  contrary 
had  not  come  from  this  honourable  Board  [the  Privy  Coun- 
cil] or  her  Majesty,  as  it  is  said."  Many  other  abuses  and 
instances  of  wrong-doing  are  enumerated,  showing  the 
need  for  instant  and  strict  investigation  and  redress. 

At  the  same  time  serious  charges  were  made  by  Sir  John 
Bourne  against  Edwin  Sandys,  the  Bishop  of  Worcester. 
The  details  of  accusations  and  rebutments,  countercharges, 
and  apologies,  do  not  concern  this  narrative.1  But  they 
show  that  affairs  in  the  diocese  were  not  satisfactory,  and 
perhaps  had  some  bearing  upon  the  enquiry  shortly  after 
set  on  foot  as  to  the  state  of  all  the  dioceses  generally. 
That  enquiry,  as  regards  Worcester  diocese,  elicited  the 
fact  that  out  of  259  churches  (or  305  if  the  46  exempt 
churches  be  included)  20  were,  at  the  date  of  the  certificate, 
20th  September,  1563,  then  void  and  unserved:  14  were 
void  but  were  served  by  curates,  and  4,  though  not  vacant, 
had  non-resident  incumbents  and  were  otherwise  unserved. 
The  number  of  households  is  stated  to  be  11,165,  givmg 
an  estimated  population  of  55, 825. 2  The  following  year 
saw  the  enquiry  set  on  foot  by  the  Privy  Council  concern- 
ing the  conformableness  of  the  Justices  of  the  Peace.  Bishop 

1  Cf.  P.R.O.  Dom.  Eliz.,  xxvm,  Nos.  36-9,  42-6. 

2  Harl.  MS.  595,  No.  28,  f.  205  and  f.  209. 


WORCESTER  357 

Sandys's  reply  was  distinctly  discouraging.  He  reports  on 
112  gentlemen.  Of  these  $6  are  stated  to  be  "  favourers," 
46  are  labelled  as  "  adversaries,"  while  the  residue,  30,  are 
"  indifferent."  He  includes  himself,  the  Dean  of  his  Cathe- 
dral and  his  Chancellor  amongst  the  favourers,  and  it  is  to 
be  noted  that,  amongst  the  so-called  "indifferent."  several 
known  Catholics  are  to  be  recognised.  As  these  "  indiffer- 
ent "  Justices  could  clearly  have  been  counted  on  to  declare 
for  the  Catholic  side  on  an  emergency,  it  is  not  too  venture- 
some to  say  that  76  "  adversaries "  to  36  "  favourers,"  or 
more  than  two  to  one,  constituted  a  real  element  of  danger 
in  case  of  recourse  to  severe  measures  against  the  recus- 
ants of  the  diocese.  In  acquainting  the  Privy  Council  with 
these  facts,  the  Bishop  suggested  certain  methods  of 
counteracting  the  evil:  "  If  all  such  as  mislike  and  contemn 
true  religion,  now  by  common  order  set  forth,  were  put  out 
of  authority  and  public  office.  If  the  oath  for  the  Queen's 
Majesty's  Supremacy  were  tendered  to  all  such  as  bear  rule 
or  be  of  authority  in  their  country  and  yet  known  to  be 
adversaries  to  true  religion.  If  such  as  be  put  in  commission 
for  the  peace,  or  are  called  to  other  offices  in  the  common- 
wealth, should  take  their  oaths  openly  at  the  sessions  or 
some  other  public  place  for  the  Queen's  Supremacy.  If  gen- 
tlemen and  such  as  be  in  authority  were  enjoined  every  quar- 
ter to  receive  the  Communion  and  to  hear  a  sermon  to  the 
good  example  of  others."  Of  more  immediately  practical 
value,  however,  is  the  following:  "  If  popish  and  perverse 
priests  which,  misliking  religion,  have  forsaken  the  ministry 
and  yet  live  in  corners,  are  kept  in  gentlemen's  houses  and 
had  in  great  estimation  with  the  people,  where  they  marvel- 
lously pervert  the  simple  and  blaspheme  the  Truth,  were 
restrained  of  their  liberty  and  put  to  the  oath  for  the 
Queen's  Majesty's  Supremacy."1  This  is  a  pregnant 
passage;  for,  in  a  few  lines  is  pictured  the  true  situation  in 
England  at  that  period,  and  for  long  afterwards.  Many  in- 
cumbents left  their  cures  rather  than  take  the    oaths  of 

1   Camden  Miscellany,  vol.  ix,  Letters  from  the  Bishops  to  the  Privy 
Council,  1564,  pp.  1-8. 


358     TASK  OF  THE  ELIZABETHAN  BISHOPS 

Supremacy  and  Uniformity.  Yet  it  was  these,  rather  than 
those  who  took  their  places,  rather  than  those,  also,  who 
conformed,  who  were  "  kept  in  gentlemen's  houses  and  who 
were  had  in  great  estimation  with  the  people"; — plainly 
showing  the  real  sentiments  of  the  majority  of  the  nation. 
It  was  a  minority,  backed  by  laws  made  in  a  packed  and 
subservient  Parliament,  which  imposed  its  will  on  an  un- 
willing majority.  Sandys's  methods  were  drastic  rather  than 
persuasive;  and,  in  the  early  days  of  his  episcopate,  he 
seems  to  have  been  taken  to  task  by  his  Metropolitan,  the 
gentle  and  moderate  Parker,  for  the  unnecessary  harshness 
and  severity  of  his  rule.  His  reply1  is  worth  reading  in 
extenso;  but  only  two  sentences  need  here  be  quoted,  as 
showing  the  spirit  that  animated  him,  and  the  merely  out- 
ward observance  which  that  spirit  had  secured.  That  it  was 
merely  outward  is  proved  by  what  has  been  quoted  from 
his  report  made  in  1564,  and  receives  confirmation  from 
subsequent  correspondence.  He  thus  expressed  himself  in 
1560:  "  How  his  [the  Bishop  of  Hereford's]  folks  go  I  can- 
not well  tell,  but  I  assure  you  mine  go  so  soberly  and 
decently  as  they  offend  no  piece  of  the  Queen's  Majesty's 
Injunctions.  For  if  I  be  under  the  yoke,  such  as  pertain  to 
me  shall  draw  in  the  same  yoke  with  me."  The  next 
glimpse  afforded  us  of  the  Bishop's  sentiments  in  regard  to 
his  flock  is  in  a  letter  written  during  the  fears  and  alarms 
caused  by  the  Rising  in  the  North.  Bearing  this  fact  in 
mind,  the  main  references  of  the  following  letter  are  suffici- 
ently clear.  It  was  penned  for  Cecil's  information  on  12th 
December,  1569:  "...  I  have  here  long  laboured  to  gain 
good  will:  the  fruits  of  my  travail  are  counterfeited  coun- 
tenances and  hollow  hearts  :  this  small  storm  maketh  many 
to  shrink:  hard  it  is  to  find  one  faithful.  The  rulers  will 
not  displease,  but  so  serve  the  time  that  they  may  be  safe 
in  all  times.  Religion  is  liked  as  it  may  serve  their  own 
turn:  not  one  that  is  earnest  and  constant.  .  .  .  But  I  have 
at  hand  a  constant  and  cruel  enemy,  who  desireth  nothing 
more  than  my  destruction:  he  daily  molesteth  me  and 
1  Parker  Corresp.,  No.  90,  24th  October,  1560. 


WORCESTER  359 

maketh  me  weary  of  mine  office;  he  will,  if  he  can,  work 
my  woe.  None  love  him  for  himself,  but  for  his  religion 
many  like  of  him.1  In  the  appointing  of  soldiers  from  hence 
[i.e.,  to  serve  against  the  rebels]  no  respect  was  had  to 
religion,  a  matter  to  have  been  minded  in  my  opinion ;  they 
well  considered  to  spare  their  own  tenants,  and  to  send 
forth  mine.  .  .  .  Wales  with  the  borderers  thereof  is  vehem- 
ently to  be  suspected.  .  .  .  Sundry  Justices  here  have  not 
yet  subscribed;  which  thing  to  avoid,  suddenly  some  of 
them  went  out  of  the  country.  It  will  give  great  offence 
and  much  hinder  the  cause,  except  they  be  in  short  time 
compelled  to  do  as  others  have  done.  More  give  their 
hands  than  their  hearts,  and  may  say  with  Euripides: 
'  Lingua  juravi ;  vientem  injuratam  gero."'2  The  true  im- 
port of  this  letter  and  its  complaints  is  made  still  clearer, 
were  there  any  hesitancy  in  the  matter  possible,  from  the 
endorsement  of  this  letter,  placed  there  by  the  receiver's 
secretary:  "  Bp.  of  Worcester  to  my  master:  complaining 
of  such  as  dissemble  with  him.  Papists  or  favourers  of 
them  in  those  parts.  The  danger  from  them  at  this  junc- 
ture." Earlier  in  the  same  year  Bishop  Sandys  held  a 
visitation  of  his  diocese ;  and  prepared  for  the  same  a  series 
of  forty-seven  articles  of  enquiry  for  the  whole  diocese,3 
and  a  supplementary  series  of  thirty-four  for  the  Dean  and 
Chapter.4  Those  that  are  of  a  routine  nature,  as  of  course 
most  of  them  are,  may  be  passed  over;  but  attention  is 
called  to  the  following  points:  (7)  "  Item,  whether  that  your 
minister  be  an  earnest  setter-forth  of  true  religion  ...  or 
that  he  rather  in  private  talk  or  by  the  contemptuous 
using  of  his  office  is  an  hinderer  of  the  same."  (25)  "  Item, 
whether  you  have  removed  out  of  your  church  all  rood 
lofts,  altars  and  altar  stones,  images,  crosses,  candlesticks, 
with  all  other  monuments  of  idolatry  and  superstition,  and 
what  is  become  of  the  same ;  whether  they  be  reserved  or 

1  There  can  be  little  doubt  that  the  person  referred  to  is  Sir  John 
Bourne,  brother  to  the  deprived  Bishop  of  Bath  and  Wells. 

2  Lansd.  MS.  11,  No.  70. 

3  Cf.  ibid.,  11,  No.  94.  '  Cf.  ibid.,  11,  No.  95. 


36o     TASK  OF  THE  ELIZABETHAN  BISHOPS 

burned;  and  if  they  be  reserved,  in  what  place  they  be, 
and  who  hath  the  keeping  of  them."  (26)  Item,  whether 
there  be  any  Latin  books,  Mass  books,  grayles,  portesses, 
and  such  other  books  of  Popery  reserved  in  your  church, 
or  in  any  private  man's  hand,  who  hath  the  keeping  of 
them,  and  whether  any  abrogate  holydays  be  observed, 
and  by  whom."  (28)  "  Item,  whether  there  be  any  . .  .  being 
of  lawful  age  that  hath  not  received  the  Communion  every 
year  thrice."  (29)  "  Whether  there  be  any  .  .  .  that  use  to 
pray  upon  Latin  books,  or  beads,  or  have  the  same  in  their 
keeping."  (30)  "  Item,  whether  there  be  any  .  .  .  that  by 
speech  or  otherwise  deprave  the  service  of  the  Church  now 
received,  or  speak  against  true  religion  now  set  forth,  or 
either  by  word  or  writing  maintain  the  usurped  authority  of 
the  Bishop  of  Rome,  the  blasphemous  private  Mass,  or 
any  other  point  of  Popery."  (32)  "  Item,  whether  there  be 
any  .  .  .  that  hath  in  his  keeping  any  of  Mr.  Harding's 
books,  or  such  other  as  came  from  Louvain  or  elsewhere, 
impugning  religion  now  by  common  order  received."  (34) 
"  Item,  whether  you  know  any  .  .  .  defamed,  reported,  or 
vehemently  suspected  to  have  said  or  heard  Mass  since 
such  time  as  it  was  abolished  .  .  ."  (35)  Item,  whether 
you  know  any  that  have  forsaken  the  ministry  as  misliking 
true  religion  now  by  order  set  forth,  and  notwithstanding 
in  corners  say  Mass  and  labour  by  all  kind  of  persuasion  to 
pervert  and  seduce  the  simple  people.  .  .  ."  (42)  "  Item, 
whether  there  be  any  that  have  refused  or  neglected  to 
have  his  or  their  children  baptised  in  the  Church,  according 
to  the  order  received.  .  .  ."  Such  questions  would  not  have 
been  asked  unless  the  conviction  had  existed  that  some 
affirmative  answers  were  sure  to  be  forthcoming.  In  the 
same  way  Nos.  32  and  33  of  the  queries  put  to  the  Dean 
and  Chapter  were  framed  to  detect  lurking  Catholicism.  (32) 
"  Item,  whether  there  be  any  that  do  refuse  to  follow  and 
obey  the  Queen's  proceedings  appointed  by  the  statutes  of 
this  realm  and  the  Common  Book  of  Prayers  in  any  thing." 
This  is,  it  is  true,  applicable  to  Puritan  as  well  as  to  Papist; 
but  the  next  article  shows  what  class  of  delinquent  was  up- 


WORCESTER  361 

permost  in  the  minds  of  the  Bishop  and  his  officials.  (33) 
"  Item,  whether  there  be  any  that  do  withdraw  themselves 
from  the  Communion  and  sermons,  or  which  maintain  by 
talk  or  otherwise  Popery,  idolatry  and  superstition." 

Edwin  Sandys  was  translated  to  London  in  1570,  and 
thence  to  York  in  1577.  At  first  he  refused  the  See  of 
London,  and  thereby  annoyed  Cecil.  When  he  learnt  this 
fact,  he  wrote  a  propitiatory  letter,  in  which  the  follow- 
ing passage  occurs:  "If  you  glome1  upon  me,  I  shall 
serve  Christ's  Church  with  less  comfort  and  to  less  profit. 
The  world  thinketh  that  you  are  my  very  good  friend  and 
that  I  may  do  somewhat  with  you  ;  if  the  Papists  may  learn 
misliking,  they  will  easily  overcrow  me,  and  it  will  much 
weaken  my  work  in  God's  Church." '  Such  words  show 
that  the  Catholics  were  still  in  some  force  and  had  to  be 
reckoned  with.  To  the  end  of  his  life  Sandys  was  pursued  not 
only  by  their  undying  hatred,  but  by  that  of  others  as  well, 
the  animosities  aroused  during  his  tenure  of  the  See  of 
St.  Wulstan  never  having  been  allayed.  The  reasons  are 
not  far  to  seek.  If  he  was  determined  to  secure  conformity 
in  others,  he  was  also  careful  not  to  miss  any  opportunity 
of  enriching  himself  and  his  relatives  at  the  expense  of  his 
Sees.  The  disgust  created  in  men's  minds  by  such  glaring 
rapacity  and  nepotism  was  at  the  bottom  of  much  of  the 
opposition  shown  to  him  by  Sir  John  Bourne  and  others. 
That  this  disgust  was  not  ill-founded  may  be  seen  in  docu- 
ments relating  to  the  See  of  Worcester  still  existing.'  Even 
Lord  Burghley  was  constrained  at  last  to  take  notice  of  it; 
and  in  May,  1586,  annotated  a  most  damaging  catalogue 
of  the  grants  and  leases  which  Sandys,  then  Archbishop  of 
York,  had  made  in  favour  of  his  family.  This  paper ' 
enumerates  twenty-six  grants  made  during  a  nine  years' 
tenure  of  the  See  of  York,  of  which,  as  Lord  Burghley  sums 
up  at  the  end,  six  leases  went  to  his  son  Samuel,  five  to 
Myles,  four  to  Edwin,  and  two  each  to  Henry,  Thomas, 

1   Frown.  2  Lansd.  MS.  12,  No.  82,  26th  April,  1570. 

Cf.  P.R.O.  Dom.  Eliz.,  CXI,  Nos.  24,  25,  26. 
*  Lansd.  MS.  50,  No.  34. 


362     TASK  OF  THE  ELIZABETHAN  BISHOPS 

and  George,  while  another  was  bestowed  upon  his  son-in- 
law,  Anthony  Awcher,  worth  in  all  about  .£1750  yearly — 
an  enormous  sum.  The  Archbishop  defended  his  action. 
"  I  grant,"  he  wrote  to  Lord  Burghley,  "  that  I  gave  (as  I 
lawfully  might),  to  my  six  sons,  every  one  two  leases  in 
reversion.  ...  I  am  bound  in  conscience  to  take  care  over 
my  family";  and  in  justification  cited  the  example  of  his 
predecessor,  Grindal,  who, "  within  two  months  that  he  was 
translated  unto  Canterbury,  gave  unto  his  kinsmen,  his 
servants,  and  for  round  sums  of  money  to  himself,  six  score 
leases  and  patents."  The  whole  letter  is  instructive.1  The 
returns  about  recusants  asked  for  by  the  Privy  Council,  as 
to  date,  really  belong  to  Whitgift's  episcopate;  but  the  in- 
formation they  give,  properly  concerns  Sandys's  tenure  of 
the  See.  Forty-nine  persons  were  "  detected  "  for  not  attend- 
ing divine  worship  at  their  parish  churches;  but  the  per- 
functory character  of  these  enquiries,  coupled  with  the 
admissions  already  quoted,  shows  that  many  more  recusants 
must  have  escaped  detection.  This  surmise  is  made  clear  by 
a  letter  from  Whitgift  to  the  Privy  Council,  dated  5th  Nov- 
ember, 1577,  in  which  he  states  that  the  diocesan  officials, 
"have  not  hit  the  meaning  .  .  .  of  your  letters;  for  in  that 
visitation  there  was  not  one  gentleman  nor  person  of  wealth 
presented  for  not  coming  to  hear  divine  service ;  and  yet  it 
is  well  known  that  there  are  both  men  and  women  of  great 
countenance  and  revenues  within  my  diocese  guilty  there- 
in." 2  The  gist  of  his  remarks,  which  are  too  general  for 
quotation,  may  be  summed  up  in  part  of  the  endorsement 
of  the  letter:  "...  to  reform  the  disorder  of  Popery  in 
those  parts." 

The  diocese  of  Hereford,  which  long  remained  one  of  the 
most  opposed  to  the  principles  of  the  Reformation,  was 
provided  with  a  prelate  in  every  possible  way  distasteful 
to  the  sentiments  of  both  the  clerical  and  lay  elements 
within  its  borders.  John  Scory  had  originally  been  a 
Dominican;  and  after  the  dissolution  of  the  religious  houses, 

1  22nd  May,  1586;  Lansd.  MS.  50,  No.  33. 

2  P.R.O.  Dom.  Eliz.,  cxvm,  No.  II. 


HEREFORD  363 

he  went  with  the  reformers.  In  1551  he  became  Bishop  of 
Rochester,  and  shortly  after  was  transferred  to  Chichester. 
His  episcopal  consecration  was  questioned,  indeed  not 
acknowledged,  under  Mary;  but  on  Elizabeth's  accession, 
he  was  not  restored  to  his  old  See;  his  services  could  not 
be  dispensed  with  altogether  as  he  formed  a  useful  link 
with  the  past,  and  he  was  therefore  appointed  to  Here- 
ford. These  facts  will  partly  account  for  the  unceasing 
strife  that  marked  the  whole  of  his  episcopate,  and  caused 
him,  at  one  time,  to  seek  transfer  elsewhere.  He  earnestly 
petitioned  Lord  Burghley  to  that  effect  in  the  following 
pathetic  terms:  "help  me  out  of  this  country,  wherein  I  am 
persuaded  that  I  can  never  do  much  good  .  .  .  who  hath 
lived  here  these  fifteen  years  (as  they  say)  in  a  purgatory. 
Therefore,  my  good  Lord,  have  pity  on  my  grey  head,  that 
it  may  be  brought  to  the  grave  (if  it  be  God's  pleasure)  with 
some  more  quiet  than  hitherto  it  hath  had."  l  He  was,  how- 
ever, left  at  Hereford  till  his  death  ten  years  later.  His  first 
grievance  was  personal  and  very  real,  for,  finding  a  new 
survey  of  his  lands  necessary,  and  making  application  for 
this  purpose,  he  begged  of  Cecil  that  one  Richard  Harford 
(or  Harvard)  might  not  be  one  of  the  commissioners,  since 
he  was  "the  very  root  from  whence  my  whole  adversity 
and  trouble  doth  spring  out — a  man  without  the  fear  of 
God,  abhorring  His  Gospel  and  the  embracers  of  the  same. 
.  .  .  Then  an  archdeacon  .  .  .  now  a  layman  lewdly  hinder- 
ing all  godliness  and  the  cause  of  the  godly,  whose  endeavour 
against  me  hath  so  prevailed  that  my  book  {i.e.,  statement 
of  revenues,  etc.]  hath  been  thrice  altered,  and  now  my 
living  hardly  left  with  £400  yearly,  and  yet  no  remedy:  I 
must  pay  tenths  and  first  fruits  after  the  rate  of  .£700 
yearly,  and  above." '  The  letter  then  refers  to  the  affairs  of 
the  diocese  at  large:  "  the  disorder  of  the  Cathedral  Church 
of  my  bishopric  is  such  that  it  may  justly  be  accounted  a 
very  nursery  of  blasphemy,  whoredom,  pride,  superstition 
and  ignorance;  and  yet  no  power  in  me  to  reform  it,  the 

1  Lansd.  MS.  20,  No.  63,  13th  June,  1575. 

2  P.R.O.  Dom.  Eliz.,  xvn,  No.  32,  21st  June,  1561. 


364     TASK  OF  THE  ELIZABETHAN  BISHOPS 

same  being  exempt  from  my  jurisdiction,  contrary  to  the 
usage  in  all  other  like  churches."  On  17th  August,  1561, 
he  showed  Cecil  that  his  own  sense  of  freedom  under  the 
"  liberty  of  the  Gospel  "  was  rudely  shocked  by  the  observ- 
ances retained  around  him.  "  Understanding  by  my  man 
that  your  honour  desireth  further  to  be  instructed  touching 
the  hindrance  of  religion  in  this  country  by  popish  Justices, 
it  may  please  you  to  be  advertised  that  upon  Thursday  last 
past  there  was  not  one  butcher  in  Hereford  that  durst  open 
his  shop  to  sell  one  piece  of  flesh;  and  the  next  day  being 
Friday  there  was  not  one  in  the  whole  city,  Gospeller  nor 
other,  that  durst  be  known  to  work  in  his  occupation  or 
to  open  his  shop  to  sell  anything,  so  duly  and  precisely 
was  that  abrogate  fast  and  holyday '  there  kept.  .  .  .  And 
this  disorder  in  observing  abrogated  fasts  and  holydays 
hath  divers  times  happened  since  my  coming  into  this 
country;  and  although  I  have  (God  be  thanked)  brought 
the  country  to  conformity  of  the  laws  herein  .  .  .  yet  the 
city  being  exempt  from  my  jurisdiction,  remaineth  as 
before." 

As  an  instance  of  his  utter  helplessness,  Scory  declared 
that  "  Mugge,  Blaxton,  Arden,  Gregory,  Ely,  Havard  the 
priest  [all  priests],  and  such  like  enemies  of  the  truth  that 
were  driven  out  of  Exeter,  Worcester,  and  other  places," 
found  a  safe  asylum  in  Hereford,  with  the  connivance  of 
the  local  Justices,  and  were  "  so  maintained,  feasted  and 
magnified  with  bringing  them  through  the  streets  with 
torchlights  in  the  winter,  that  they  could  not  much  more 
reverently  have  entertained  Christ  Himself,  if  they  had 
known  Him  visibly  and  personally  among  them.2  He  had 
tried,  unsuccessfully,  to  arrest  the  above-named  "  Massers," 
but  had  been  thwarted  by  the  Justices  who  spirited  them 
away  when  he  began  to  search  for  them  in  Hereford. 
Hence,  in  the  bitterness  of  his  soul,  he  exclaims:  "  I  am  in 
this  country  a  mere  stranger,  abhorred  of  the  most  part  for 
religion,  lying  among  them  not  without  danger  (which  I 

1  Vigil  and  Feast  of  the  Assumption  B.V.M. 

2  P.R.O.  Dom.  Eliz.,  xix,  No.  24. 


HEREFORD  365 

am  sure  to  feel,  if  God  do  not  frustrate  the  expectation  of 
many  of  them,  as  my  trust  is  He  will)  ...  I  assure  your 
honour  that  among  the  worshipful  of  this  shire,  there  be  not 
many  favourers  of  true  religion."  l  Archbishop  Parker  and 
Grindal,  Bishop  of  London,  saw  the  seriousness  of  the 
impasse,  and,  coming  to  Scory's  aid,  applied  for  "her 
Highness'  letters  to  authorise  the  now  Bishop  to  visit  the 
same  Church  from  time  to  time  as  occasion  shall  serve, 
whereby  that  Church  shall  be  purged  of  many  enormities."  J 
Nothing  seems  to  have  resulted,  however,  from  their  inter- 
vention ;  so  that,  more  that  twenty  years  later,  Aubrey,  the 
Vicar-General  of  the  Province  of  Canterbury,  writing  to 
Walsingham,  stated  that  the  Chapter  of  Hereford  had 
"  always  pretended  they  be  exempt  by  their  charters  and 
privileges  as  well  from  the  Archbishops  of  Canterbury  as 
they  were  from  their  own  Bishops."  As  the  only  remedy, 
he  suggested  a  "  commission  to  visit  sufficient  to  exclude 
them  from  all  quarrels  and  colour  of  exceptions  .  .  .  im- 
mediate from  the  Queen's  Majesty,  whose  authority  only 
they  do  [admit]  for  visitation  and  all  other  kinds  of  correc- 
tion." 3  The  Privy  Council  enquiry  in  1563  as  to  the  state 
of  the  various  dioceses,  elicited  little  of  interest  from  Bishop 
Scory;  but  "  The  Cathedral  Church  of  Hereford  and  the 
prebendaries  and  ministers  of  the  same  Church  are  ex- 
empted from  my  ordinary  jurisdiction,  and  under  the  juris- 
diction of  none  that  I  know  (except  the  Queen's  Majesty). 
Also  every  canon  and  prebendary  in  his  own  house  is  his 
own  Ordinary,  and  Ordinary  to  all  his  family :  so  that  neither 
I  nor  the  Dean  of  the  Cathedral  Church  have  anything  to 
do  with  them." 4  Bishop  Scory's  letter  to  the  Council,  in 
1564,  about  the  religious  tendencies  of  the  Justices,  is,  of 
course,  merely  corroborative  of  what  has  gone  before: 
"  although  I  am  persuaded,"  he  says,  "  that  to  certify  .  .  . 
may  procure  me  more  hatred  (which  needeth  not)  and  what 

1  P.R.O.  Dom.  Eliz.,  XIX,  No.  24. 

2  Ibid.,  XXII,  No.  12,  13th  March,  1561-2. 

3  Egerton  MS.  1693,  f-  95>  Ioth  May,  1582. 
*  Lansd.  MS.  6,  No.  84. 


366     TASK  OF  THE  ELIZABETHAN  BISHOPS 

as  hatred  can  do,  yet "  he  furnishes  a  list,  not  quite  in  the 
terms  asked  for,  but  sufficiently  distinct  for  the  present 
purpose.  The  totals  amount  to  54  who  are  "  favourers,"  49 
"  adversaries,"  and  20  "  neuters."  His  opinion  had  been 
asked  only  about  Justices  of  the  Peace,  but  his  return  em- 
braced others,  presumably  those  whom  he  was  anxious  to 
see  included  in  the  commission  for  the  peace.  It  remains 
to  observe  that  many  distinctly  "  Catholic "  names  occur 
amongst  those  classed  as  "  neuters."  Likewise,  the  Bishop 
asserts,  doubtless  with  accuracy,  that "  of  the  whole  Council 
of  Hereford  (city)  there  is  not  one  that  is  counted  favour- 
able to  this  religion."  In  the  same  way,  he  remarks  of  the 
Justices  in  Radnorshire,  that  "none  .  . .  are  counted  favourers 
of  this  religion;  but  the  best  of  them  is  judged  but  a  neuter." 
Ludlow  is  credited  with  six  "favourers";  but  "the  rest  of 
this  town  are  counted  either  enemies  or  neuters."  The 
details  about  individual  gentlemen  are  occasionally  very 
full ;  and  a  suspicion  is  engendered  that  the  Bishop  took  an 
unfair  advantage  of  the  confidential  nature  of  his  communi- 
cation to  damage  the  reputations  of  his  personal  enemies. 
Thus  he  writes  of  Thomas  Havard,  "  Justice  of  Peace,  which 
by  common  fame  is  a  daily  drunkard,  a  receiver  and  main- 
tainer  of  the  enemies  of  religion,  a  maintainer  of  superstition 
and  namely  of  abrogated  holydays.  He  useth  to  pray  upon 
a  Latin  Primer  full  of  superstitions.  His  wife  and  maidens 
use  beads;  and,  to  be  short,  he  is  a  mortal  enemy  to 
Christian  religion."  His  griefs,  as  already  recounted,  re- 
appear on  this  occasion,  he  evidently  considering  it  a 
favourable  opportunity  for  securing  a  hearing  for  them. 
"There  be  also  in  this  diocese  and  county  of  Hereford 
divers  fostered  and  maintained  that  be  judged  and  esteemed 
some  of  them  to  be  learned,  which  in  Queen  Mary's  days 
had  livings  and  offices  in  the  Church,  which  be  mortal  and 
deadly  enemies  to  this  religion.  Their  names  be  Blaxton, 
Mugge,  Arden,  Ely,  Friar  Gregory,  Howard,  Rastall  of 
Gloucester,  Jonson,  Menevar,  Oswald,  Hamerson,  Ledbery, 
and  certain  others  whose  names  I  know  not.  These  go 
from  one  gentleman's  house  to  another  where  they  know 


HEREFORD  367 

to  be  welcome.  .  .  .  The  chief  and  principal  receivers  and 
maintainers  of  these  are  William  Luson,  canon  residentiary 
of  Hereford,  the  vicars  of  the  choir  there,"  etc.,  etc.  (twelve 
in  number).  "  And  of  these  there  be  certain  thought  to  have 
Masses  in  their  houses,  which  come  very  seldom  or  not  at 
all  to  church,  which  never  received  the  Communion  since 
the  Queen's  Majesty's  reign  openly  in  the  church,  which 
keep,  as  it  were,  schools  in  their  houses  of  Popery,  deriding 
and  mocking  this  religion  and  the  ministers  thereof.  ...  I 
must  needs  confess  that  I  am  not  able  to  reform  these, 
except  I  should  be  mightily  backed  by  your  honourable 
authority,  and  have  those  worshipful  Justices  which  are 
deemed  favourers  of  religion  to  be  more  earnestly  aiding 
than  they  have  been."  "  Besides  mine  own  knowledge, 
Mr.  John  Ellys,  Dean  of  the  said  church  [of  Hereford], 
hath  certified  me  as  followeth:  that  all  the  canons  resid- 
entiaries  (except  Jones,  qui  dicit,  et  non  facit,  which  is  rash, 
hasty,  and  indiscreet),  are  but  dissemblers  and  rank  Papists. 
And  these  have  the  rule  of  the  church,  and  of  all  the 
ministers  and  officers  of  the  same,  and  are  neither  subject 
to  the  ordinary  jurisdiction,  neither  of  the  Dean,  nor  of  the 
Bishop,  but  were  reserved  immediately  to  the  usurped 
jurisdiction  of  the  Bishop  of  Rome,  and  now  to  the  Queen's 
Majesty  (as  they  say),  which  they  claim  and  hold  by  pre- 
scription, so  that  now  they  may  do  what  they  list  without 
controlment.  They  neither  observe  the  Queen's  Majesty's 
Injunctions  given  unto  them  in  her  Highness'  visitation, 
nor  the  Archbishop  of  Canterbury's  Injunctions  given  them 
in  his  visitation,  nor  yet  the  Injunctions  of  the  Queen's 
Majesty's  High  Commission.  .  .  .  The  Communion  was 
not  ministered  in  the  Cathedral  Church  since  Easter  (as  I 
am  informed).  The  canons  will  neither  preach,  read 
homilies,  nor  minister  the  holy  Communion,  nor  do  any 
other  thing  to  commend,  beautify,  or  set  forwards  this 
religion,  but  mutter  against  it,  receive  and  maintain  the 
enemies  of  religion.  .  .  .  The  said  Dean  hath  also  certified 
me  that  the  vicars  of  the  choir,  the  deacons  and  sextons, 
be  all  mortal  enemies  to  this  religion,  receivers  and  main- 


368     TASK  OF  THE  ELIZABETHAN  BISHOPS 

tainers  of  such  as  themselves  be."  '  This  letter  is  undated, 
but  was  written  about  the  end  of  October.  On  1 7th  February 
following,  Bishop  Scory  wrote  to  Archbishop  Parker,  say- 
ing he  had  lately  received  an  order  from  the  Queen  to  make 
a  return  concerning  the  observance  of  the  Act  of  Uniformity 
in  his  diocese.  He  complains  that,  as  before  mentioned, 
the  greatest  disorders  prevailed  in  the  Cathedral  Church. 
"  The  Communion  (as  I  am  informed)  was  not  above  once 
ministered  there  since  Easter."  "  Blaxton,  Mugge,  Arden 
and  divers  others  such  like,  enemies  of  God  and  true  religion, 
were  entertained  of  some  of  them  [the  canons]  as  if  they 
are  God's  angels  .  .  .  the  railing,  seditious,  and  false  books 
of  Harding  and  Dorman  are  there  common,  and  magnified 
and  extolled  to  the  sky."  "  The  remainder  of  this  long  letter 
contains  much  the  same  matter  as  that  sent  to  the  Privy 
Council  in  the  previous  autumn.  About  this  time,  too, 
approximately  1565,  a  return  of  vacant  livings  in  various 
dioceses  names  thirteen  then  unprovided  in  that  of  Here- 
ford.'1 That  Scory  was  not  altogether  without  grounds  for 
apprehending  personal  violence  appears  from  a  letter  sent 
by  Lord  Burghley  to  the  President  and  Council  of  Wales,1 
dated  30th  June,  1 571,  ordering  them  to  enquire  into  an 
attack  on  the  Bishop's  servants,  in  the  town  of  Bromyard, 
in  the  course  of  which  it  is  said  that  Scory  "  dare  not  well 
without  a  great  guard  travel  from  his  dwelling  house,"  and 
the  letter  concludes  with  the  following  words:  "  And  herein 
we  have  the  more  cause  to  warn  you  to  be  earnest  for  the 
safety  of  the  Bishop,  for  that  in  this  last  Parliament  we 
understand  he  was  in  like  manner  assaulted  by  such  as 
we  presume  are  parties  to  this  last  riot."  Bishop  Scory's 
letter,  asking  to  be  translated  to  Norwich,5  has  already  been 
quoted  from ;  but  other  portions  may  here  be  cited,  show- 

1  Camden  Miscellany,  vol.  ix,  Letters  from  the  Bishops  to  the  Privy 
Council,  1564,  pp.  1 1-23. 

-  Harl.  MS.  6990,  No.  30,  f.  64. 

3  Cf.  P.R.O.  Dom.  Eliz.  Add.,  XII,  No.  108. 

4  Harl.  MS.  4943,  f.  256. 

5  13th  June,  1575  ;  Lansd.  MS.  20,  No.  63. 


HEREFORD  369 

ing,  through  the  hatred  he  experienced,  that  Popery  was 
still  rife  in  the  diocese.  He  reminds  Lord  Burghley  that  he 
"  objected  that  [he]  heard  evil  of  me,  namely  that  I  should 
be  an  usurer."  Though,  as  has  been  seen,  Scory  complained 
of  the  poverty  of  his  revenues,  and  though,  nevertheless,  he 
managed  to  make  ample  provision  for  his  family,1  yet  judg- 
ing by  a  list  appended  to  this  letter,  he  had  ready  cash 
always  at  command,  which  he  loaned  to  those  needing  help. 
At  the  date  of  writing  59  individuals  had  repaid  him,  but 
19  were  still  in  his  debt.  To  the  Bishop's  credit  be  it  said, 
that  the  loans  were  not  made  "  upon  usury,"  as  had  been 
charged  against  him.2  The  Bishop  pathetically  complains: 
"  it  is  no  new  thing  for  the  people  of  this  country  to  speak  evil 
of  me  (whom  they  have  so  often  and  so  diversely  slandered) 
.  .  .  the  two  certificates  that  I  made  of  the  names  of  the 
Papists  of  this  country  at  the  commandment  of  the  most 
honourable  Privy  Council,  the  one  about  10  or  12  years 
[1564],  the  other  about  five  years  past  (whereof  they  were 
shortly  after  as  privy  as  myself)  .  .  .  will  never  out  of  their 
hearts;  besides  the  common  grief  they  have  against  me  for 
religion;  which  I,  my  men  and  friends  have  found  and  felt 
at  assizes  and  sessions  and  elsewhere." 

Notwithstanding  the  obloquy  cast  upon  him  by  his  flock 
for  previous  delations,  the  Privy  Council,  in  1577,  demanded 
yet  another  certificate  of  recusants  of  him  in  common 
with  the  rest  of  the  bishops.  While  complying,  however, 
with  the  orders  of  the  Privy  Council,  mindful  of  past  ex- 
periences, he  begs  them  "  to  take  such  order  that  these  our 
faithful  means  and  doings  be  not  disclosed  to  the  '  spialls ' 
of  the  Papists  of  this  country  that  be  about  the  Court,  who 
I  think  be  not  unknown  to  your  honours,  who  have  been 
wont  in  times  past  to  give  notice  to  their  friends  here  of 
such  matters." 3  The  two  gentlemen  he  consulted  as  to  the 
values  of  recusants'  property  differed   in  their  estimates. 

1  Cf.  P.R.O.  Dom.  Eliz.,  CXXXVii,  No.  72,  and  Athenae  Ca7itabrig. 
sub  nomine. 

2  Cf.  ibid.,  cv,  No.  8,  5th  July,  1575,  John  Abington  to  Bp.  Scory. 

3  Ibid.,  cxvm,  No.  7,  2nd  November,  1577. 

B  B 


The  Bishop  adopted  the  lower  valuation,  for,  as  he  cau- 
tiously remarked,  "  it  were  better  to  offend  in  estimating 
men  too  little  than  too  much."  l  The  appended  list  con- 
tains over  fifty  names  of  substantial  recusants:  those  who 
were  not  worth  fining  were,  probably,  not  worth  reporting. 

Some  of  the  details  given  in  this  list  furnish  a  better 
commentary  on  the  value  of  outward  conformity  than 
pages  of  explanation  and  description  could  do.  Thus : 
"  James  Eton  of  Hereford,  Chapter  Clerk  to  the  Dean  and 
Chapter  and  Registrar  to  the  Dean  there,  cometh  to  the 
Church  but  sitteth  so  far  that  he  neither  heareth  nor  can 
hear,  whereat  many  are  offended."  "  John  Vicares,  of  Here- 
ford, brewer,  cometh  to  St.  John's,  his  parish  church  .  .  . 
but  he  walketh  up  and  down  in  time  of  divine  service  in  a 
place  so  far  off  that  he  cannot  hear."  "  John  Hareley,  of 
Brompton,  Esq.,  cometh  to  church,  but  doth  there  in  the 
time  of  divine  service  read  so  loud  upon  his  Latin  popish 
Primer  (that  he  understandeth  not),  that  he  troubleth  both 
the  minister  and  people." a  A  marginal  note  also  called  the 
Council's  attention  to  the  fact  that  the  three  mentioned  in 
the  following  extract  were  priests.  "  Richard  Powle,  school- 
master, lately  of  Sutton;  Richard  Fitzsimons,  joiner; 
Miniver,  priests,  all  three  false  seducers  and  teachers  in 
corners." 3 

Exeter  was  ruled  by  William  Alley  for  ten  years 
(71570);  but  no  correspondence  of  his  bearing  on  the  con- 
formity of  his  diocese  is  worth  quoting.  His  report  on  the 
state  of  his  diocese  in  1563,  dated  19th  July,4  is  meagre,  and 
the  little  that  can  be  learnt  from  it  is  that  three  churches 
in  Exeter  itself  were  vacant,  and  that  the  youthful  arch- 
deacons of  Totnes  and  Barnstaple  were  both  pursuing 
their  studies  at  Oxford.  Next  year,  in  answering  the  de- 
mands of  the  Privy  Council  about  the  disposition  of  the 
Justices  of  the  Peace  within  his  jurisdiction,  he  was  not 
much  more  explicit.  Cornwall  showed  four  "  very  great"  or 

1  P.R.O.  Dom.  Eliz.,  cxvm,  No.  7,  2  November,  1577. 

2  Ibid.,  cxvm,  No.  7  i.  3  Ibid. 
4  Harl.  MS.  594,  No.  18,  f.  202. 


EXETER  371 

"  extreme  "  enemies,  while  nine  were  recommended  to  be 
included  in  the  commission.  In  Devon,  two  of  the  Justices 
were  "not  counted  worthy";  but  the  rest,  not  named, 
though  "not  so  earnest  to  maintain  the  ecclesiastical 
policy  "  were  nevertheless  "  for  their  learning,  knowledge, 
and  wisdom,"  considered  indispensable  on  the  bench  of 
magistrates.  He  then  proceeded  to  give  "the  names  of 
those  which  are  no  Justices,  yet  being  of  some  authority, 
are  judged  no  favourers  of  the  foresaid  state."  "  The  great 
Arundell  of  Cornwall"1  heads  the  list;  nine  other  names 
follow,  Tregian,  Tremayne,  etc.;  and  "others  there  be 
which  are  of  a  contrary  disposition ;  but  these  be  the  chief- 
est,  or  at  the  least  so  counted."  2 

Alley  was  succeeded  by  William  Bradbridge,  who  does 
not  appear  to  have  been  as  active  as  most  of  his  episcopal 
brethren.  Only  two  records  of  his  tenure  of  Exeter  concern 
this  enquiry.  The  one  is  a  letter  he  wrote  to  Lord  Burgh- 
ley  on  3rd  December,  1576,  in  which  he  asked  him  "to 
have  some  remembrance  of  the  Cornishmen  which  are  com- 
manded to  wait  above  for  their  refusal  to  come  to  the 
church,  Mr.  Robert  Beckote,  Richard  Tremayne,  and 
Francis  Ermyn,  with  whom  as  yet  I  cannot  prevail  to 
work  any  good  conformity,  whether  the  cause  be  the  bold- 
ness that  they  have  conceived  by  reason  of  the  lenity  used 
in  these  our  days,  or  rather  their  hope  of  alteration  in  time 
to  come,  because  I  see  they  crave  ever  respite  of  time,  and 
in  time  grow  rather  indurate  than  reformable." 3  The  other 
document  is  his  reply  to  the  Council  on  28th  October, 
1577.4  He  states  that  Cornwall  is  the  portion  of  his  diocese 
"  where  are  the  greatest  number  of  Papists."  The  list  pre- 
pared by  him  and  his  confidants  contains  over  thirty  names 
of  persons  of  wealth  or  substance,  most  of  whom  had 
already  been  "  indicted,"  some  had  been  "  condemned," 
while  three  had  "  fled."    The  condition  of  affairs  in  this 

1  Sir  John  Arundell  of  Lanherne. 

2  Camden  Miscellany,  vol.  ix,  Letters  from  the  Bishops  to  the  Privy 
Council,  1564,  pp.  67-71. 

s  Lansd.  MS.  23,  No.  8.  *  P.R.O.  Dom.  Eliz.  cxvil,  No.  25. 


372     TASK  OF  THE  ELIZABETHAN  BISHOPS 

diocese  has,  however,  been  sufficiently  indicated  in  a  pre- 
vious chapter  l  and  confirms  the  statement  that  for  many- 
years  the  West  of  England  held  out  against  the  new  order 
of  religion. 

Richard  Cheyney  was  made,  much  against  his  will, 
Bishop  of  Gloucester  in  1 562 ;  as  it  was,  however,  one  of  the 
poorest  of  the  English  Sees,  he  also  received  the  revenues 
of  Bristol  for  a  time.  But  by  17th  September,  1563,  he 
wrote  to  Cecil,  asking  to  be  allowed  to  resign,  since  as  he 
said,  he  had  "  much  rather  live  a  private  life  like  a  poor 
man.  ...  I  have  already  enough  of  Lording,  wherein  I  find 
nothing  but  splendidam  mdseriam." 2  His  episcopate  of 
seventeen  years  was  one  of  trouble  and  unhappiness ;  but 
these  were  inflicted  on  him  by  reformers, — Puritans  who  as- 
sailed his  doctrine,  and  denounced  him  for  Romanising 
tendencies.  He  was  not  inclined  to  persecute  the  Catholics ; 
and,  when  he  made  his  return  about  the  Justices  in  1564,  he 
had  only  praise  for  those  dwelling  in  his  diocese,  and  in- 
veighed instead  against  certain  "  preachers,"  and  the  rising 
puritanical  spirit:  "These  things  I  can  rather  lament  than 
amend  and  reform,  or  give  your  honours  so  meet  advice 
tending  to  the  redress  thereof  as  your  great  wisdoms  of 
yourselves  can  conceive,  being  indeed  a  man  of  small  ex- 
perience and  little  observation  in  matters  of  policy  and 
government."3  The  state  of  the  diocese  in  1563  does  not 
appear  to  be  forthcoming,  the  return  bound  up  with  the 
others  already  quoted  from  belonging  to  1603-5.  We  are 
therefore  confined  to  the  return  of  those  refusing  to  go  to 
church,  made  in  1577.  Again  the  attention  of  the  Privy 
Council  is  called  to  the  delinquencies  not  so  much  of  the 
Papists  as  of  the  Puritans.  The  passage  is  worth  quoting, 
as  affording  a  solitary  instance  of  a  bishop  indicating  mem- 
bers of  this  sect.  "  The  persons  [thirty-nine  are  named]  in 
this  schedule  inserted,  upon  examination  of  the  cause  of 

1  The  Universities,  pp.  40-1,  ante. 

2  Lansd.  MS.  6,  No.  72. 

3  Camden  Miscellany,  vol.  ix,  Letters  from  the  Bishops  to  the  Privy 
Council,  1564,  pp.  51-3. 


GLOUCESTER;   BATH  AND  WELLS        373 

their  refusal  .  .  .  some  (supposed  to  savour  of  Papistry) 
alleged  sickness;  some  other  alleged  debt,  and  therefore 
refused,  fearing  process.  The  third  sort,  commonly  called 
Puritans,  wilfully  refuse  to  come  to  church,  as  not  liking 
the  surplice,  ceremonies,  and  other  service  now  used  in  the 
Church ;  whereupon  they  have  been  arraigned  and  indicted, 
in  divers  several  sessions,  upon  the  statute,  and  now  remain 
in  prison  upon  the  same."  '  A  few  weeks  later,  he  sent  up 
an  amended  list  containing  eighty  names;  but  as  these 
were,  probably,  Puritans  as  well  as  Papists,  our  interest  in 
them  ceases.2 

The  western  fringe  will  be  completed  by  considering  the 
state  of  the  diocese  of  Bath  and  Wells.  On  the  deprivation 
of  Gilbert  Bourne,  Gilbert  Berkeley  was  appointed  to  the 
See,  being  consecrated  on  24th  March,  1560.  Within  a  year 
from  that  date,  he  wrote  a  piteous  letter  to  Cecil,  asking 
for  help  to  overcome  the  difficulties  that  beset  him,  or  for 
leave  to  resign.  The  main  difficulties  were  pecuniary.  Al- 
though, as  he  admits,  his  predecessor,  "  the  said  Gilbert 
earnestly  did  seek  to  augment  the  possessions  of  his 
bishopric  [despoiled  under  Henry  and  Edward],  and  to 
preserve  the  right  of  the  same  " ;  nevertheless  he  conveyed 
leases  of  a  large  part  of  his  lands,  fictitiously  as  may  be 
supposed,  as  soon  as  he  saw  how  matters  were  tending 
under  Elizabeth,  to  the  grave  impoverishment  of  his  sup- 
planter.  His  aiders  and  abettors  were  Humphrey  Coles,  a 
Somersetshire  Justice — "  a  man  learned  in  the  common 
laws  of  this  realm,"  and  his  own  brother,  Richard 
Bourne,  a  citizen  of  London.  The  point  is  that  the  con- 
veyances complained  of  were  executed  out  of  a  desire  to 
hamper  the  professors  of  the  new  creed,  by  men,  who,  as 
specifically  stated  by  Berkeley,  "  be  professed  enemies  to 
God's  truth  and  your  Majesty's  most  godly  proceedings."  s 

1  P.R.O.  Dom.  Eliz.,  cxvn,  No.  12,  24th  October,  1577. 

2  Ibid.,  cxvm,  Nos.  32  and  32  i,  20th  November,  1577. 

3  P.R.O.  Dom.  Eliz.,  xvi,  No.  27,  7th  March,  1 560-1 ;  Encl.  i,  Sup- 
plication to  the  Queen's  Majesty ;  Encl.  ii,  Note  of  manors,  etc.,  con- 
veyed  away   from  the   See.    The  whole  episode  is  not  without   its 


374     TASK  OF  THE  ELIZABETHAN  BISHOPS 

Coles  had  evidently  instructed  Bourne  how  he  could  defeat 
the  law  without  infringing  it.  Nor  was  this  a  solitary  case ; 
for,  from  a  passage  in  Bishop  Pilkington's  works,  it  would 
seem  that  Bourne's  act  was  merely  one  example  of  an 
almost  common  practice  on  the  part  of  the  deprived 
bishops.  Pilkington  says  that  some  Protestant  bishops 
had  no  lands  to  forsake  even  if  they  would,  because  "  their 
popish  predecessors  have  provided  too  well  for  them, 
against  reason.  .  .  ."  '  "  Divers  of  these  holy  prelates  [Cath- 
olics] .  .  .  had  so  leased  out  their  houses,  lands  and  parks, 
that  some  of  the  new  bishops  had  scarce  a  corner  of  a 
house  to  be  in,  and  divers  not  so  much  ground  as  to  grese - 
a  goose  or  a  sheep ;  so  that  some  were  compelled  to  tether 
their  horse  in  their  orchard;  and  yet  have  these  holy  fathers 
provided  that  if  they  be  restored  (as  they  look  for,  as  many 
think)  that  they  shall  have  their  commodities  again."  3 

humorous  aspect,  and  these  documents  are  well  worth  perusing.  Their 
substance  appeared  in  the  Dublin  Review,  October,  1897,  pp.  125-50. 

1  Parker  Soc. :  Pilkington's  works,  Confutation  ofa?i  Addition,  §  10, 
p.  592.  He  goes  on  to  ask:  "If  ye  demand  why  some  bishops  have 
so  little  lands?"  and  supplies  the  answer.  "Some  of  their  lands  .  .  . 
he  exchanged  by  order  of  law ;  but  the  most  part,  the  malicious  popish 
prelates,  that  were  their  predecessors,  seeing  their  kingdom  decay, 
and  that  the  professors  of  God's  Gospel  should  follow  in  their  places, 
would  rather  give  it  ...  by  lease,  patents,  annuities,  than  any  that 
loves  God  should  enjoy  it.  .  .  .  How  many  bishoprics  in  the  realm 
have  they  impoverished  by  these  means!  So  that  they  which  now 
succeed,  are  not  able  to  relieve  themselves  nor  the  poor  as  they  would 
and  should.  .  .  ."  It  is  well  to  state,  however,  that  Pilkington  himself 
had  not  much  cause  to  complain  of  his  own  particular  lot,  since  (and 
we  have  it  on  Fuller's  authority)  he  was  able  to  dower  his  two  daugh- 
ters, Deborah  and  Ruth,  with  ,£4,000  apiece.  A  modern  writer  goes 
so  far  as  to  say  that  one  of  Pilkington's  daughters  had  a  portion  of 
,£10,000,  making  no  mention  of  the  other;  this  statement  may,  how- 
ever, be  an  exaggeration.  As  Pilkington  certainly  went  to  his  diocese 
a  poor  man,  such  wholesale  fleecing  of  the  See  naturally  created  no 
little  scandal  at  the  time.  Cf.  Fuller,  Church  History,  ed.  1665,  Bk.  v, 
P-  253,  §  55,  and  Bk.  IX,  p.  109,  §  21. 

2  Graze. 

3  Parker  Soc:  Pilkington's  works,  Confutation  of  an  Addition,  §  10 
PP-  594-5- 


BATH  AND  WELLS  375 

Bishop  Berkeley  furnishes  the  true  key  to  the  manoeuvres 
executed  by  Coles  in  conjunction  with  Bishop  Bourne;  for, 
in  the  words  with  which  he  concludes  the  recital  of  his 
woes, "  it  appeareth  by  the  stubbornness  of  the  people  here, 
that  all  this  above  written  was  done  only  to  deface  the 
Gospel  and  to  discredit  the  successor  of  Bourne  for  lack  of 
ability  to  keep  hospitality,  as  they  do  not  stick  to  say: 
'  here  is  a  goodly  prelate  succeedeth  my  Lord  Bishop 
Bourne!'  "l 

Berkeley's  "  supplication,"  here  put  under  contribution, 
contains  a  paragraph  of  more  than  ordinary  interest,  on 
account  of  the  glimpse  it  affords  of  the  results  of  the  coer- 
cive system  adopted  under  Elizabeth  against  the  clergy 
who  refused  to  acknowledge  the  royal  Supremacy,  and  of 
the  explanation  suggested  between  its  lines  of  the  reason 
which  most  probably  conduced  to  keep  them  staunch  in 
their  adherence  to  the  Pope.  Berkeley  complained  that 
the  advowsons  of  all  the  greatest  and  best  spiritual  promo- 
tions within  the  diocese  had  been  distributed  by  Bishop 
Bourne,  so  that  there  was  nothing  left  wherewith  to  reward 
his  own  following,  or  over  which  he  might  exercise  his 
right  of  patronage  and  presentation.  Still  worse,  however, 
in  his  eyes,  was  the  fact  that  many  livings  had  been  given 
"  to  such  persons  as  either  refuse  to  subscribe,  or  else  in 
hope  of  a  new  day  revealing  their  good  wills,  had  fled  the 
realm."  Just  as  this  "  hope  of  a  new  day  "  had  made  some 
cross  the  seas  to  seek  safety  and  freedom  of  conscience,  so, 
acting  differently  on  other  minds  and  natures,  it  had  in- 
fluenced the  majority  of  the  clergy  in  the  direction  of  time- 
serving, temporising,  bartering  inward  conviction  for  a 
continued  tenure  of  their  livings,  "  such  is  the  fear  of 
punishment  by  the  purse,  more  than  of  God's  curse,"  as 
Bishop  Home  of  Winchester  neatly  expressed  this  frame 
of  mind."  They  trusted  that  time  would  set  things  straight, 
and  undo  the  harm  they  saw  being  done  under  their  very 
eyes.  That  looked-for  time  never  came;  so  they  died, 
some  perhaps  still  hoping  for  better  things;  but  most  had 
1  P.R.O.  Dom.  Eliz.,  xvi,  No.  27  ii.  2  Ibid.,  xix,  No.  36. 


376     TASK  OF  THE  ELIZABETHAN  BISHOPS 

learnt  to  stifle  conscience,  and  for  worldly  considerations 
had  come  to  acquiesce  in  "  the  Queen's  Majesty's  godly 
proceedings  in  matters  of  religion."  It  was  thus,  and  thus 
only,  that  the  parliamentary  form  of  religion  was  imposed 
upon  the  English  people. 

Gilbert  Berkeley  sent  in  two  certificates  in  1 563  ;  but 
one  was  hastily  drawn  up  and  incorrect,  and  so  was  supple- 
mented by  another  more  carefully  prepared.1  Even  so,  this 
amended  report  is  an  unsatisfactory  and  incomplete  docu- 
ment. From  both,  taken  together,  we  find  that  the  diocese 
was  credited  with  400  churches  and  chapels,  and  49  "  ex- 
empts." The  Douay  Diaries  enumerate  only  388.  Vacan- 
cies are  not  indicated,  but  may  be  supplied  from  a  return 
made  to  the  Queen  about  1 565.  This  document  gives  the 
number  of  livings  in  various  dioceses  unsupplied  with  an 
incumbent  at  that  date.  Bath  and  Wells  had  21  such. 
The  neighbouring  diocese  of  Bristol  had  26,  though  smaller 
in  extent.2  The  numbers  of  households  are  not  consistently 
given.  Those  that  are  mentioned  are  8,226  in  number, 
representing  an  approximate  population  of  41,130  souls. 
It  would  be  nearer  the  mark  to  double  or  even  to  treble 
these  figures.  The  return  of  Justices  in  1 564  is  surprisingly 
meagre,  considering  the  complaints  made  but  three  years 
before;  but  on  the  present  occasion  the  Bishop  wrote:  "  I 
have  not  much  to  say  against  any  man,  but  only  by  report, 
wherewith  to  trouble  your  honours  I  have  not  thought  it 
good,"3  and  three  individuals  were  commended  by  him.  In 
1 569,  news  was  sent  to  Cecil  about  the  use  made  of  Bath 
for  meetings  of  Catholics  and  other  suspected  persons, 
under  cover  of  taking  the  waters  there ;  but  strange  as  it 
may  seem,  it  came,  not  from  the  Bishop  who  received  his  title 
from  that  city,  but  from  William  Alley,  Bishop  of  Exeter, 
who  forwarded  a  letter  he  had  received  from  one  Thomas 
Churchyard,  writing  from  Bath  on  24th  May/  This  in- 
former alliteratively  said:  "  I  do  advertise  your  honour  of 

1  Harl.  MS.  594,  No.  7,  f.  45,  and  7*  f.  57. 

3  P.R.O.  Dom.  Eliz.  Add.,  XII,  No.  108. 

3  Bishops'  Letters,  1564,  p.  63.  '  Lansd.  MS.  u,  No.  56. 


BATH  AND  WELLS  377 

such  things  as  I  have  seen  suspiciously  handled  among  the 
Papists,  whose  practices  drives  me  to  presume  that  they 
have  or  may  pass  their  compass  with  some  proud  attempt 
or  folly.  And  surely  the  unbridled  braying  and  talk  of 
Bonner's  disciples  doth  argue  some  cureless  corrsy  is 
closely  crept  in  their  cankered  minds.  The  truth  is,  most 
honourable,  having  occasion  to  lie  in  Bath  twenty  days,  I 
saw  such  assembly  and  company  of  gentlemen  as  made  me 
to  muse  of  so  great  a  repair;  and  weighing  their  callings 
and  Christain  religion,  I  found  by  good  proof  and  trial  that 
all  the  whole  troop  in  a  manner  were  hinderers  of  God's 
Word  and  His  Gospel."  After  naming  one  or  two  promin- 
ent Catholics,  the  informer  proceeds:  "The  most  of  all 
Bonner's  blood  and  kinsfolk  are  dwelling  in  this  town ;  and 
undoubtedly  under  the  colour  of  coming  to  the  bath,  many 
mad  meetings  there  are";  and  justifies  his  suspicions  by 
"  hoping  withal  that  the  nest  of  wasps,  wheresoever  they 
may  be  found  shall  have  their  stings  taken  from  them  and 
be  learned  a  new  lesson ;  and  God  doth  know  and  His 
Church  doth  witness  .  .  .  that  in  all  these  countries  is  such 
liberty  of  speech  as  may  be  lamented,  if  dutiful  ears  durst 
rebuke  that  they  hear."  It  is  quite  possible  that  Bath  may 
at  this  period  have  been  a  trysting  place  for  those  concert- 
ing measures  of  support  for  the  abortive  Rising  in  the 
North  six  months  later;  but  there  is  no  evidence  forth- 
coming to  that  effect.  The  value  of  Thomas  Churchyard's 
letter,  however,  lies  in  its  attestation  of  the  numbers  and 
possible  influence  of  Catholics  in  the  diocese  of  Bath  and 
Wells,  ten  years  after  Elizabeth's  accession.  The  Privy 
Council's  requirements  as  to  recusants,  in  1577,  met  with 
a  ready  response  from  Bishop  Berkeley,  who  expressed 
himself  eager  to  obtain  the  information  for  them  which 
they  sought.  The  first  and  fullest  certificate,  originally 
attached  to  its  covering  letter  dated  24th  October,  1577,1 
is  not  forthcoming;  but  a  supplementary  one,  forwarded  on 
1  oth  November,  1577,2  contains  the  names  of  eight  persons 
"  lately  declined  and  grown  to  be  recusants,  these  whose 
1  P.R.O.  Dom.  Eliz.,  cxvn,  No.  II.  a  Ibid.,  cxvm,  No.  17  i. 


378     TASK  OF  THE  ELIZABETHAN  BISHOPS 

names  are  newly  added  to  the  certificate  herewithal  sent 
to  your  honours,  over  and  besides  those  whom  I  certified 
unto  you  by  my  former  letters." 

Sir  William  Cecil,  writing  to  Archbishop  Parker  on  12th 
August,  1561,  complained  to  him  of  the  "nakedness  of 
religion"  in  Suffolk  and  Essex;  and  told  him  that  "the 
Bishop  of  Norwich  is  blamed  even  of  the  best  sort  for  his 
remissness  in  ordering  his  clergy.  He  winketh  at  schis- 
matics and  Anabaptists,  as  I  am  informed."1 

After  the  change  of  religion,  John  Parkhurst  had  been 
appointed  to  the  See  of  Norwich,  thus  holding  jurisdiction 
over  Suffolk,  one  of  the  incriminated  counties ;  he  had  not 
sought  a  bishopric ;  nay,  he  had  sought  to  escape  one,  for 
as  he  said,2  he  could  not  "  be  ambitious  of  so  much  misery." 
Once  he  had  taken  on  himself  the  duties,  however,  he 
endeavoured  to  discharge  them;  and  on  23rd  May,  1561, 
complained  to  Henry  Bullinger  that  he  had  but  little 
leisure,  "  being  occupied  whole  days  together  in  the  dis- 
covery and  extirpation  of  errors  and  irregularities."3  This 
refers  to  the  preliminary  visitation  of  his  diocese,  upon 
which  he  was  then  engaged.  His  methods  of  correction 
could  not  have  risen  to  the  standard  then  approved  of,  or 
he  would  not  have  incurred  Cecil's  censure.  Norwich 
already  could  boast  of  a  Dutch  church,  and  it  may  be  sur- 
mised that  his  energies  were  directed  solely  against  the 
Papists,  since  Cecil  complained  that  he  "  winked  at "  the  ex- 
cesses of  the  others.  That  he  meant  to  be  diligent  in  stamp- 
ing out  Popery  is  clear  from  the  Injunctions  he  issued  in 
1 56 1,  wherein  occur  the  following  directions:  "  Item,  that 
they  neither  suffer  the  Lord's  table  to  be  hanged  and  decked 
like  an  altar,  neither  use  any  gestures  of  the  popish  Mass  in 
the  time  of  ministration  of  the  Communion,  as  shifting  of 
the  book,  washing,  breathing,  crossing  or  such  like.  .  .  . 
Item,  that  they  see  the  places  filled  up  in  walls  or  else- 
where, where  images  stood,  so  as  if  there  had  been  none 
there.    The  stones,  foundations,  or  other  places,  frames  or 

1  Parker  Corresp.,  No.  107,  p.  148. 

2  I  Zur.,  p.  61,  No.  26.  '  Ibid.,  p.  97,  No.  41. 


NORWICH  379 

tabernacles  devised  to  advance  imagery,  holy  water  stones 
also  to  be  quite  and  clean  taken  away;  and  the  places 
where  they  were  set,  comely  and  decently  to  be  made  up 
with  convenient  expedition,  or  else  to  declare  to  the  Ordin- 
ary the  lets  and  stays  thereof  as  soon  as  may  be."  Amongst 
the  Interrogatories  to  be  answered,  occur  the  following: 
"  Whether  that  any  images,  beads,  books  of  service  or 
vestments  not  allowed  by  law  be  reserved  of  any  man  or 
in  any  place,  by  whom  and  where  they  be  reserved.  .  .  . 
Whether  any  man  is  known  to  have  said  or  heard  Mass 
since  it  was  abrogate  by  law;  whether  any  man  maketh 
any  singing  cakes  to  say  Mass  withal,  reserveth  vestments, 
superaltaries,  Mass  books  or  other  instruments  of  this 
superstition.  .  .  .  Whether  any  man  keepeth  in  his  house 
any  abused  images,  namely  such  as  he  removed  out  of  the 
church,  or  St.  John's  head,  S.  Catherine,  S.  Nicholas,  or 
such  like.  Whether  any  body  useth  beads,  Latin  Primers 
or  any  other  prayer  books  than  that  be  allowed  by  public 
authority  to  be  used."1  This  attitude  of  hostility  to  the 
old  Faith  is  also  shown  in  another  letter  to  Bullinger,  in 
which  he  says :  "  I  received  a  letter  from  my  Lord  of  Canter- 
bury four  days  ago;  the  substance  of  it  is  this,  that  I  should 
diligently  ascertain  by  every  means  in  my  power,  though 
secretly,  who,  and  how  many  there  are  in  my  diocese,  who 
do  not  comply  with  the  true  religion.  ...  I  shall  carefully 
attend  to  this,  and  shall  give  every  intelligence,  as  soon  as 
possible,  concerning  the  enemies  of  Christ."2  The  oppor- 
tunity he  sought  was  not  long  after  afforded  him ;  for,  in  the 
summer  of  1 563  came  the  demand  from  the  Privy  Council 
for  the  general  return  of  the  state  of  his  diocese  in  common 
with  the  rest  throughout  England  and  Wales.  Bishop 
Parkhurst's  answer  was  despatched  on  17th  July,  and  its 
information,  if  meagre  in  some  respects,  yet  in  others  is 
full  and  catagorical.  From  early  days  Norwich  had  been 
noted   for  the  large   number  of  its  churches.     Parkhurst 

1  Second  Report  of  Co7)unissioners  on  Rubrics,  1868,  App.  E,  pp. 
401-2. 

-  I  Zur.  p.  122,  No.  53,  20th  August,  1562. 


380     TASK  OF  THE  ELIZABETHAN  BISHOPS 

pointed  out  that  "  there  have  been  heretofore  many  more 
chapels  of  ease  within  my  diocese  than  are  at  present 
standing;  which  have  been  so  ruinous  of  long  time  that 
they  are  quite  fallen  down  and  grown  out  of  memory 
amongst  the  people." a  Notwithstanding  this  diminution, 
dating,  of  course,  from  the  reign  of  Edward  VI,  the  Douay 
Diaries  give  a  total  of  1,121  churches,  while  Parkhurst 
himself  enumerated  1,201  parish  churches.  Of  these  he 
says  that  j6j  livings  were  provided  with  incumbents, 
while  the  astoundingly  high  number  of  434  livings  were 
then  void;  though  in  Norwich  archdeaconry  where  there 
were  80  such;  in  Norfolk  archdeaconry  where  the  vacancies 
amounted  to  182  ;  and  in  Sudbury  archdeaconry,  where  they 
were  42,  "  some  of  them  were  served  by  curates  " ;  while  in 
Suffolk  archdeaconry  "  many"  of  the  130  void  livings  were 
stated  to  be  thus  served  by  curates.  Even  allowing  that 
half  of  these  parishes  devoid  of  incumbents  were  not  en- 
tirely destitute  of  spiritual  aid,  there  remain  217  left  entirely 
unprovided  for.2  This  shows  that  a  very  much  larger  num- 
ber of  the  clergy  abandoned  their  livings  rather  than  con- 
form to  the  Elizabethan  settlement  of  religion,  many  more 
than  it  has  been  customary  hitherto  to  acknowledge,  and 
this  independently  of  those  who  underwent  the  final  penalty 
of  deprivation.  The  recognition  of  this  circumstance  is  not 
without  its  bearing  on  modern  controversies  connected  with 
this  subject.  What  became  of  some  of  these  clergy  has 
already  been  learnt  from  the  episcopal  correspondence 
previously  quoted.  Others  certainly  did  follow  the  example 
of  Matthew  Carewe,  Archdeacon  of  Norfolk,  of  whom 
Parkhurst  wrote  that  he  "  remaineth  beyond  the  sea,  where 
I  know  not";  and  of  Nicholas  Wendon,  Archdeacon  of 
Suffolk,  who  "  is  likewise  beyond  the  sea,  where  I  know 
not."    Bishop  Parkhurst's  certificate  in  the  following  year, 

1  Lansd.  MS.  6,  No.  60. 

'J  It  should  be  pointed  out,  however,  that  in  a  return  of  the  vacant 
livings  in  various  dioceses,  made  to  the  Queen  about  1565,  those  of 
Norwich  are  stated  to  be  only  104  in  number — still  a  high  percentage. 
(Cf.  P.R.O.  Dom.  Eliz.  Add.  XII,  No.  108). 


NORWICH  381 

as  to  the  towardness  of  the  Justices  of  the  Peace  in  his  dio- 
cese, is  a  model  of  caution  and  fear  of  excess.  The  result  is 
perhaps  disappointing  as  lacking  vigour  both  of  description 
and  of  detail.  In  Norfolk  and  Suffolk  but  twelve  Justices 
in  all  are  named  as  being  "  not  so  well  bent  unto  the 
advancement  of  the  godly  proceedings  of  this  realm  in 
causes  ecclesiastical "  as  might  be  altogether  desirable. 
More,  he  professes  himself  unwilling  to  commit  himself  to, 
"  lest  the  malice  of  the  one  part  or  the  other  might  be 
occasion  for  me  to  certify  more  than  truth";  and  even 
in  naming  these  suspect  gentlemen,  he  is  careful  to  qualify 
this  delation  with:  "yet  I  must  testify  .  .  .  that  I  neither 
know  or  yet  can  learn  probably  of  any  fact  that  [they]  are  to 
be  charged  withal ;  but  for  the  rest  I  dare  not  testify  so  far, 
being  not  by  common  fame  accounted  of  such  zeal  and 
good  affection  toward  the  religion  now  established  as  is 
necessarily  required  in  men  of  their  authority  and  calling."1 
The  general  neglect  of  his  diocese  with  which  he  has  been 
charged,  as  it  would  seem  rightly,  does  not  enter  into  the 
scope  of  this  enquiry ;  but  from  the  Parker  Correspondence  * 
it  is  clear  that  his  Metropolitan  grieved  over  his  remiss- 
ness, both  as  regards  the  diocese  itself  and  also  in  connec- 
tion with  the  Papists,  who  seemed  to  be  able  to  run  free 
there.3  So  things  went  on  until  Parkhurst's  death  in  1575  ; 
whereupon  a  man  of  a  different  stamp  was  appointed  to 
succeed  him.  This  was  Edmund  Freake,  who  had  been  for 
between  two  and  three  years  Bishop  of  Rochester.    He,  too, 

1  Camden  Miscellany,  vol.  ix,  Letters  from  the  Bishops  to  the  Privy 
Council,  1564,  pp.  47-8,  58-9. 

-  Nos.  306,  308,  317,  339  and  344. 

a  In  1569.  Parkhurst's  Injunctions  still  needed  the  inclusion  of  a 
question  like  the  following:  "  Item,  whether  you  have  in  your  church 
a  decent  pulpit  and  Communion  Table,"  and  as  a  set-off:  "  Item, 
whether  your  rood-lofts,  images,  tabernacles,  and  all  other  monuments 
of  idolatry  be  pulled  down  and  defaced,  and  your  church  and  chancel 
decently  reformed.  And  whether  you  know  of  any  popish  and  super- 
stitious books,  images,  vestments,  or  such  like,  remaining  within  your 
parish,  and  in  whose  hands  they  be"  {Second  Report  of  Ritual  Com- 
mission, App.  E,  p.  405). 


382     TASK  OF  THE  ELIZABETHAN  BISHOPS 

had  his  own  internal  troubles,  episcopal  and  domestic,  with 
which  these  pages  have  nothing  do;1  but  he  laboured  under 
the  disadvantage  of  being  considered  by  his  contempor- 
aries as  being  under  the  control  of  Mrs.  Freake,  and  so 
suffered  in  his  popularity  and  influence.  "  This  is  vox 
populi,  a  principle  well  known  throughout  all  Norfolk, 
spread  by  his  household,  that  whatsoever  Mistress  Freake 
will  have  done,  the  Bishop  must  and  will  accomplish." 
Also  witnesses  were  to  be  found  to  whom  he  had  confessed 
(doubtless  out  of  the  hearing  of  this  lady,  "  noted  through- 
out the  country  a  greedy  covetous  scraping  woman,"  as 
well  as  a  "  scold  ")  "  his  misery  with  tears ;  for  that  what- 
soever she  would  have  my  Lord  do,  if  he  did  not  accom- 
plish it  accordingly,  she  would  make  him  weary  of  his 
life."2  Whatever  the  Bishop  might  be  within  the  walls  of 
his  palace,  without  he  was  active  enough,  perhaps  on  ac- 
count of  uxorious  incentive,  against  the  Papists  and  "  the 
peevish  preciser  sort,"  which  latter  retaliated  on  him  by 
exposing  his  domestic  broils  to  the  public.  In  writing  to 
the  Council  on  29th  October,  1577,3  when  sending  up  his 
certificate  of  recusants  "  to  come  to  church,"  he  apologises, 
on  account  of  insufficient  time  for  making  enquiry,  that  it 
is  drawn  up  "  confusedly  without  distinction  of  the  men  and 
matter."  This  is  unfortunate,  as  Papists  and  "  the  peevish 
preciser  sort "  [i.e.,  the  Puritans)  appear  together  in  one 
list.  However,  of  the  fifty-one  names  which  the  list  con- 
tains, twenty-six  are  those  of  well-known  Catholics  of  fair 
or  ample  fortunes:  many  of  the  remainder  would  also 
undoubtedly  prove  on  enquiry  and  research  to  be  Papists. 
One  gentleman  mentioned  in  this  list, Robert  de  Graye,  Esq., 
received  more  particular  attention  at  the  Bishop's  hands 
a  few  years  later.4  The  following  year,  1578,  gives  proof  of 
his  activity  against  recusants,  in  conjunction,  of  course,  with 
his    magistrates,  for   fifteen    gentlemen  were    enforced  to 

1  Cf.  P.R.O.  Dom.  Eliz.,  vols,  cxxvi  and  cxxvn  ;  also  Addenda, 
xxv,  No.  119. 

8  Ibid.,  Add.,  xxv,  No.  119,  5th  November,  1578. 

3  Ibid.,  cxvn,  No.  27.  4  Cf.  ibid.,  Add.,  xxvn,  No.  4. 


NORWICH  383 

"  remain  in  Norwich  [or  other  cities]  to  be  conferred  withal 
by  the  Bishop  or  such  as  he  shall  appoint"  ;  a  few  conformed 
and  were  either  ordered  to  bring  certificates  of  having  done 
so,  or  were  "  dismissed  with  favour";  while  five  others  were 
"  committed  close  prisoners "  to  various  gaols  within  the 
diocese.1  In  February,  1578-9,  the  Justices  of  Bury  St. 
Edmund's  in  their  zeal  for  reform,  drew  up  a  series  of  regu- 
lations for  punishments  to  be  inflicted  upon  delinquents 
against  any  of  the  articles  there  laid  down.  They  read  like 
the  items  of  interrogation  in  an  episcopal  visitation  charge, 
and  could  only  have  been  inspired  by  the  Bishop:  "whoso- 
ever shall  keep  in  his  house  any  monument  of  idolatry  or 
superstition  .  .  .  whosoever  shall  be  known  or  voiced 
commonly  to  be  a  Papist  or  maintainer  of  Popery  ...  if 
any  person  shall  be  known  secretly  to  say  or  hear  Mass, 
etc.,  etc."2 

Such  being  by  proof  incontestable  the  severity  of  Bishop 
Freake  towards  Catholics,  there  is  a  touch  of  pathos  (not, 
however,  without  it  humorous  side)  in  the  fact  that  amongst 
his  own  household,  he  unsuspectingly  harboured  members 
of  that  hated  religion.  On  14th  January,  1583-4,  he  found 
it  necessary  to  write  to  Lord  Burghley,  in  order  to  fore- 
stall the  malice  of  his  enemies.  "  There  have  been  of  late 
certain  persons  detected  for  repair  to  Mass  here  in  Norwich, 
amongst  which  company  two  of  my  retinue  are  discovered, 
the  one  being  my  butler,  the  other  a  labourer,  men  of  small 
reckoning,  and,  before  this  detection,  such  as  did  frequent 
divine  service  both  in  my  house  and  at  church ;  in  whom 
I  have  been  notably  deceived  by  reason  of  their  conformity ; 
and  therefore  least  of  all  feared  any  such  sequel  as  is  fallen 
out.  ...  I  am  moved  to  think  that  they  [the  Justices]  seek 
to  pervert  the  actions  of  these  men  to  my  reproach,  and  so 
consequently  thereby  to  confirm  the  untrue  reports  given 
out  of  my  supportation  of  Papists.  ...  I  hope  that  your 
Lordship,  knowing  partly  mine  adversaries  in  these  parts, 
will  accept  their  informations  accordingly,  who  with  vigil- 

1  Cotton  MS.  Titus  B.  in,  No.  22,  f.  69. 

2  Lansd.  MS.  27,  No.  70. 


384     TASK  OF  THE  ELIZABETHAN  BISHOPS 

ant  eyes  do  watch  all  opportunities  to  discredit  me,  being 
ready  to  wrest  every  event  to  the  worst  sense." x  It  is 
not  a  little  astonishing,  considering  the  attitude  of  Park- 
hurst,  Freake,  and  his  successor,  Scambler,  towards  every- 
thing savouring  of  Popery,  to  find,  notwithstanding,  some 
of  the  practices  they  most  condemned  still  lingering  on 
long  after  the  Elizabethan  settlement  of  religion  was  sup- 
posed to  have  ousted  them.  Thus  we  may  read  in  the 
Churchwardens'  accounts  for  Great  Yarmouth,  payments 
made  for  the  Paschal  Candle. 

1 564.  For  setting  up  the  Paschal. 

For  a  new  forelock  for  the  Paschal. 

For  painting  the  Paschal. 

For  making  a  wheel  for  the  Paschal. 
1580.  For  taking  down  the  Paschal. 
1586.  For  hanging  the  Paschal. 

For  a  new  line  for  the  Paschal.2 

Edmund  Scambler  was  Bishop  of  Peterborough  through- 
out that  portion  of  Elizabeth's  reign  with  which  this  enquiry 
is  concerned.  His  leanings  towards  Puritanism,  and  his 
support  of  the  prophesyings  of  that  sect  may  be  passed 
over;  he  made  the  usual  return  of  the  state  of  his  diocese 
in  1563,  but  the  only  information  to  be  gathered  from  it,  is 
that  its  eleven  deaneries  contained  in  all  301  parishes,3  thus 
closely  approximating  to  the  Douay  Diaries'  estimate  of 
293.  Next  year,  however,  in  making  his  return  to  the  Privy 
Council  of  Justices  of  the  Peace,  he  proved  somewhat  more 
communicative,  making  mention  of  twenty-nine  who  were 
"  earnest "  in  support  of  Protestantism,  while  3  were  classed 
as  "  indifferent,"  and  1 1  proved  to  be  "  hinderers."  He  had, 
too,  some  suggestions  "  to  be  considered  "  by  the  Privy 
Council,  amongst  which  the  following  are  of  interest. 
"  First  the  learned  adversaries  being  ecclesiastical  persons 
to  be  either  banished  or  sequestered  from  conference  with 

1  Lansd.  MS.  40,  No.  14. 

2  Manship,  Hist,  of  Great  Yarmouth,  ii,  p.  118. 

3  Lansd.  MS.  6,  No.  58. 


PETERBOROUGH  385 

such  as  be  fautors  of  their  religion,  or  else  the  oath  to  be 
tendered  unto  them  [notwithstanding  the  frightful  nature 
of  the  consequences  entailed  by  the  refusal  to  take  it]  .  .  . 
they  be  more  stubborn  and  encouraged  than  they  were 
before.  Item,  that  the  straggling  doctors  and  priests  who 
have  liberty  to  stray  at  their  pleasures  within  this  realm 
do  much  hurt  secretly  and  in  corners,  therefore  it  were 
good  that  they  might  be  called  ...  to  show  their  con- 
formity in  religion  by  subscribing  or  open  recantation  or 
else  to  be  restrained  from  their  said  liberty.  .  .  .  Item,  there 
be  divers  gentlemen  of  evil  religion  that  keep  school- 
masters in  their  houses  privately,  who  be  of  corrupt  judg- 
ments and  do  exceeding  great  hurt  as  well  in  those  houses 
where  they  teach  as  in  the  country  abroad  about  them,1 
that  it  might  be  provided  that  the  said  gentlemen  should 
not  keep  privately  in  their  houses  no  manner  of  school- 
masters but  such  as  should  be  examined  of  the  diocese 
and  admitted  thereunto  by  licence  under  his  seal  of  office. 
Item,  that  the  prebendaries  of  every  Cathedral  Church  may 
be  enforced  by  authority  to  make  a  manifest  and  open  de- 
claration of  their  faith,  etc."  2  Though,  as  has  been  said,  he 
had  leanings  towards  Puritanism,  Protestants  of  this  par- 
ticular shade  gave  him  great  trouble,  and  in  a  remarkable 
letter  he  wrote  to  Cecil,  he  made  an  admission  which  is 
worth  reproducing  here,  as  it  shows  the  general  helpless- 
ness of  the  Elizabethan  bishops  unless  backed  by  secular 
power,  in  dealing,  not  only  with  Puritans,  but  also  with 
Papists.  He  owns  that  after  God  and  Elizabeth,  Lord 
Burghley  is  his  "  only  trust  and  stay,"  and  as  such,  begs 

1  In  some  "Regulations  for  Schools  and  Schoolmasters"  (undated) 
it  is  said :  "  Divide  all  the  Papists  of  England  into  4  parts,  and  3 
parts  of  them  were  not  12  years  old  when  the  Queen  came  to  her 
Crown,  but  have  learnt  it  in  the  time  of  her  reign.  So  it  appeareth 
that  the  Queen's  trust  hath  been  deceived  in  the  education  of  the 
youth  of  her  subjects,  which  must  be  imputed  to  those  that  challenge 
the  whole  order  thereof  to  their  jurisdiction,  and  who  have  had  of  the 
Queen  and  the  realm  large  allowance  both  of  honour  and  haviour  to 
do  such  duties  carefully".  {Lansd.  MS.  155,  No.  40.) 

2  Camden  Miscellany,  vol.  ix,  Bishops'  Letters,  1564,  pp.  34-7. 

C  C 


386     TASK  OF  THE  ELIZABETHAN  BISHOPS 

him  "  to  aid  me  with  your  counsel  for  the  better  discharge 
of  my  office.  ...  I  am  without  God's  assistance  and  yours, 
very  weak  and  unable  to  execute  and  discharge  the  same 
in  these  troubles  now  moved  and  procured  by  those  whom 
men  do  call  Puritans,  and  their  fautors."  1  In  1577,  when 
making  his  return  of  persons  who  refused  to  attend  divine 
service,  he  pointed  out  to  the  Privy  Council  that  attend- 
ance at  church  did  not  necessarily  imply  acceptance  of 
the  reformed  religion — a  very  necessary  distinction  at  that 
time.  "  But  if  you  had  charged  me  or  any  other  bishop 
in  this  realm  (I  utter  it  not  without  desire  of  pardon  in  that 
I  dare  take  in  hand  to  give  your  honours  advice)  to  certify 
you  of  those  that  refuse  to  receive  the  Communion,  you 
should  have  had  a  larger  certificate  of  persons  dangerous 
in  mine  opinion  to  be  unknown  to  your  honours."  2  As  it 
was,  of  the  more  determined  and  scrupulous  class  of 
Catholics  he  was  at  the  moment  only  able  to  name  five  in 
Northamptonshire,  and  one  in  Rutland,  "  Mr.  [John]  Cham- 
bers of  Ediweston,  priest,  brother  to  my  Lady  St.  John  of 
Bletsho."  Evidently  dissatisfied  with  the  meagreness  of  this 
return,  the  Bishop  set  to  work  to  make  further  enquiries, 
and  on  18th  November  supplemented  his  first  list  by 
another,  wherein  he  repeats  the  names  of  the  earlier  letter, 
and  adds  those  of  two  more  wealthy  gentlemen.  Of  one 
he  says,  he  is  "equal  to  the  backwardest  in  my  diocese"; 
what  he  says  of  the  other  throws  much  light  on  the  methods 
employed  by  Catholics  to  avoid  being  brought  to  book: 
"  Also  there  is  one  Mr.  Standish  supposed  to  be  a  man  of 
500  marks  yearly  revenue  and  worth  £1,000  in  substance, 
that  dwelleth  some  time  at  Wolfax,  a  house  in  Northamp- 
tonshire in  the  parish  of  Brixworth,  but  for  the  most  part 
he  dwelleth  in  Lancashire  as  I  am  informed,  where  he  is 
said  to  be  ever  when  I  send  for  him,  so  that  I  could  never 
get  him  to  any  conference  as  yet.  But  I  am  certified  by 
very  credible  report  and  do  believe  he  never  came  to  the 
church  since  the  Queen's  Majesty's  reign.    And  as  he  hath 

'  Lansd.  MS.  17,  No.  27,  13th  April,  1573. 

2  P.R.O.  Dom  Eliz.,  cxvn,  No.  16,  26th  October,  1577. 


ELY  387 

shift  to  escape  my  conference  by  change  of  dwelling,  so 
hath  the  most  in  my  diocese  of  that  opinion  that  he  is  of, 
and  therefore  it  is  a  busy  matter  to  bring  them  before  me." ' 
This  clearly  shows  that  there  were  more  than  merely  eight 
or  ten  households  in  his  diocese  that  were  refractory. 

The  diocese  of  Ely  brings  us  into  close  connection  with 
Richard  Cox,  one  of  the  protagonists  of  the  English  Re- 
formation. His  former  record  must  here  be  passed  by  un- 
noticed ;  even  the  larger  aspect  of  his  career  as  one  of  the 
leaders  of  the  advanced  reform  movement  during  Eliza- 
beth's reign  cannot  receive  the  prominent  notice  really  due 
to  it;  but  rather,  he  will  here  be  portrayed  as  a  diocesan 
Bishop,  dealing  with  the  affairs  belonging  to  his  immediate 
charge,  and  even  merely  to  one  portion  of  those  affairs, 
namely,  as  connected  with  the  popish  recusants.  In  thus 
confining  our  attention  to  one  of  the  many  aspects  in  which 
this  remarkable  man  may  be  viewed,  his  career  may  be  re- 
duced to  the  manageable  limits  suitable  for  these  pages, 
and  for  the  sole  purpose  of  illustrating  the  particular  study 
now  engaging  the  reader's  attention. 

Richard  Cox  had  been  originally  destined  for  the  See  of 
Norwich,  to  which,  indeed,  he  was  formally  elected;  but  he 
was  shortly  after  transferred  to  Ely. 

This  small  diocese,  though  at  the  same  time  one  of  the 
best  endowed,  gave  greater  leisure  than  its  larger  and  more 
populous  neighbour,  and  left  the  Bishop  freer  for  the  pur- 
suit of  more  than  diocesan  interests:  a  freedom  of  which 
this  fanatical  man  fully  availed  himself.  He  had  been  one 
of  the  first  on  whom  Archbishop  Parker  laid  hands  after 
his  own  consecration.  He  was  a  strong  supporter  of  clerical 
matrimony,  as  his  extant  correspondence  proves ;  and  when 
the  Queen's  Injunction  appeared  forbidding  women  to  dwell 
within  collegiate  or  cathedral  precincts,  he  was  afire  with  in- 
dignation. The  regulation  somewhat  hit  his  own  cathedral, 
even  at  that  early  date;  for  in  August,  1561,  he  wrote  to 
Parker  that  at  that  very  time  "  there  is  but  one  prebendary 
continually  dwelling  with  his  family  in  Ely  Church.  Turn 
1  P.R.O.  Dom.  KHz.,  cxvm,  No.  29. 


388     TASK  OF  THE  ELIZABETHAN  BISHOPS 

him  out,  doves  and  owls  may  dwell  there  for  any  continual 
housekeeping.  .  .  .  What  rejoicing  and  jeering  the  adver- 
saries make!  "  '  This  non-residence  was  not  peculiar  to  the 
cathedral :  it  was  a  fault  somewhat  common  throughout  the 
diocese.  And  there  were  vacancies  too,  due  no  doubt  to  the 
cause  specified  by  him  to  Peter  Martyr :  "  The  popish  priests 
among  us  are  daily  relinquishing  their  ministry,  lest,  as  they 
say,  they  should  be  compelled  to  give  their  sanction  to 
heresies.""  Late  in  1560,  Archbishop  Parker  wrote  to 
Bishop  Cox,  as  he  had  done  to  Bishop  Kitchin,  requiring  a 
detailed  return  about  his  diocese.  Cox's  certificate,  one  of 
the  fullest  extant,  was  forwarded  to  his  Metropolitan  on  the 
following  24th  January,  1 560-1,  with  a  letter  partly  in 
English,  partly  in  Latin,3  in  which  he  says  "the  whole  sum  of 
the  cures  in  my  diocese,  which  is  152  parsonages  and  vicar- 
ages and  other  cures.  There  are  duly  served  but  only  52 
cures."  He  then  tabulates  the  remaining  100  as  follows: 
vacant  rectories,  34;  vacant  vicarages,  13;  in  all,  47;  bene- 
fices having  non-resident  incumbents,  53/  This  was  a 
shocking  state  of  things  certainly,  and  Cox  remarked  that 
if  the  same  prevailed  elsewhere,  the  condition  of  the  newly 
established  Church  was  sad  indeed :  "  miseranda  sane  et 
deploranda  hujus  dioecesis  fades ;  et  si  passim  in  locis  aliis 
perinde  se  res  habeat,  miserrima  quidem  est  Ecclesiae  Angli- 
canae  conditio"  The  rector  of  one  living,  Croxton,  was  a 
layman,  not  resident  there,  but  in  London  or  at  Court; 
that  his  position  was  accepted  as  lawful  is  clear  from  further 
notes  about  him:  he  was  an  M.A.  not  able  to  preach,  but 
kept  hospitality  on  his  cure  through  his  "  farmer."  Some  of 
the  names  of  incumbents  that  figure  on  this  certificate  recur 
at  later  dates;  for  these  priests  were  deprived  for  refusing 
the  oath  of  Supremacy.  The  work  done  by  such  as  these, 
and  the  others  who  had  been  "  daily  relinquishing  their 

1   1  Zur.,  p.  151,  No.  109.  'J  Ibid,,  p.  66,  No.  28. 

'  Add.  MS.  5813,  f.  78. 

4  Ely  is  credited  with  but  ten  vacant  livings  in  a  return  of  them  in 
various  dioceses  prepared  for  the  Queen,  presumably  about  1565.  Cf. 
P.R.O.  Dom.  Eliz.  Add.,  xil,  No.  108. 


ELY  389 

ministry  "  is  attested  by  Bishop  Cox  in  a  letter  to  Peter 
Martyr:  "When  we  consider  the  temper  and  fickleness  of 
mankind,  when  we  regard  either  the  contempt  of  the  Word 
[of  God]  or  the  neglect  of  a  religious  life,  we  can  hardly 
dare  to  expect  a  long  continuance  of  the  Gospel  in  these 
parts.  There  is  everywhere  an  immense  number  of  Papists, 
though  for  the  most  part  concealed ;  they  have  been  quiet 
hitherto,  except  that  they  are  cherishing  their  errors  in 
their  secret  assemblies  .  .  .  the  heads  of  our  popish  clergy 
are  still  kept  in  confinement.  They  are  treated  indeed  with 
kindness,  but  relax  nothing  of  their  Popery.  Others  are 
living  at  large,  scattered  about  in  different  parts  of  the  king- 
dom, but  without  any  function,  unless  perhaps  where  they 
may  be  sowing  the  seeds  of  impiety  in  secret."1  More  than 
a  year  after,  Bishop  Cox  wrote  to  Cecil,  defending  the 
clergy  against  the  aspersions  generally  cast  upon  them: 
"  laymen  (say  ye)  talk  in  corners,  that  example  in  preachers 
were  never  worse,  so  covetous,  so  indiscreet,  so  rash,  so 
negligent  they  be."  He  deprecated  such  sweeping  judg- 
ments, but  rather  "  let  every  priest  high  and  low  be  burth- 
ened  particularly.  .  .  .  Let  them  not  be  slandered  generally 
and  snatched  at  in  corners.  That  is  no  charity  nor  godly 
policy.  For  this  is  the  fetch  of  the  adversary  of  the  truth, 
whether  they  be  neuters,  Papists,  or  carnal  Gospellers,  to 
deface  the  parsons  that  the  Word  may  be  discredited.  .  .  . 
Hosius'  books  fly  abroad  in  all  corners  unica gloriatio  omnium 
Papistaruiu,  who  swarm  in  all  corners,  saying  and  doing 
almost  what  they  list.  ...  If  God's  adversaries  and  the 
Queen's  maybe  thus  tolerated  against  God  and  the  Queen 
and  we  preach  and  cry  against  them,  and  be  mocked  and 
jeered  at,  and  daily  slandered  in  corners,  intolerabilis  fuerit 
Dei  offensa,  formidandaque  pietatis  et  regni  ruina." '  This 
grievance  continued  to  harass  him  for  some  years,  and  he 
voiced  it,  as  also  other  characteristic  aspirations,  with  no 
uncertain  sound,  in  the  following  words  written  to  Bul- 
linger:  "Many  of  the  heads   of  antichrist  yet  remain  to 

1  1  Zitr.,  p.  112,  No.  49,  5th  August,  1562. 

2  Lansd.  MS.  6,  No.  87,  28th  December,  1563. 


390    TASK  OF  THE  ELIZABETHAN  BISHOPS 

be  cut  off,  which  from  time  to  time  occasion  us  much 
trouble.  I  wish  you  would  in  earnest  use  your  endeavours 
for  their  extirpation.  .  .  .  Lastly,  there  are  among  us  some 
Papists,  and  those  not  of  the  lowest  rank,  who  strain  even- 
nerve  that  they  may  be  permitted  to  live  according  to  their 
consciences,  and  that  no  account  of  his  religion  be  de- 
manded from  anyone.  Meanwhile  many  iniquitous  practices 
take  place  in  secret,  and  by  the  bad  example  they  afford 
are  a  stumbling  block  to  the  godly." *  As  time  went  on, 
however,  this  spirit  of  mitigated  toleration,  regarded  by 
Cox  as  a  blemish  on  the  thoroughness  of  the  Reformation, 
was  replaced  by  a  severity  more  in  consonance  with  the 
views  of  this  amiable  prelate,  so  that  he  could  write  to  his 
German  friend,  Rudolph  Gualter,  with  some  show  of  satis- 
faction, about  "our  Papists,  who  run  up  and  down  the  cities, 
that  they  may  somewhere  or  other  hear  Mass  in  private." " 
This  growing  intolerance  explains  why  "  certain  of  our 
nobility,  pupils  of  the  Roman  Pontiff,  either  weary  of  their 
happiness  or  impatient  of  the  long  continued  progress  of 
the  Gospel,  have  taken  flight,  some  into  France,  some  into 
Spain,  others  into  different  places"  to  find  an  asylum  where 
they  could  serve  God  according  to  their  consciences  in 
peace,  not  as  Cox  told  his  correspondent,  Bullinger,  "  with 
the  view  of  plotting  some  mischief  against  the  professors  of 
godliness." 3  Moreover,  that  this  was  the  true  reason  was 
fully  realised  even  by  Cox  himself;  for,  in  a  later  letter  to 
Bullinger,  in  which  he  informed  him  that  the  Puritans  were 
being  kept  under  some  sort  of  control  by  the  Government 
"through  fear  of  punishment,"  he  adds:  "and  by  the  same 
fear  do  they  keep  within  bounds  the  fury  of  the  Papists."  * 
That  such  measures  commended  themselves  to  the  old 
Bishop  of  Ely  is  clearly  shown  in  a  letter  he  addressed  to 
Lord  Burghley  from  "  the  unsavoury  Isle  with  turves  and 
dried-up  loads,"  in  which  he  expressed  himself  as  "much 


I  Zur.,  p.  221,  No.  88,  ioth  July,  1570. 
Ibid.,  p.  237,  No.  94,  12th  February,  1571-2. 
Ibid.,  p.  309,  No.  121,  20th  July,  1574. 
Ibid.,  p.  314,  No.  125,  25th  January,  1575-6- 


ELY  39i 

rejoicing  that  her  Majesty  is  somewhat  severe  against  her 
enemies  the  Papists.  Would  God  that  all  her  magistrates, 
high  and  low,  would  follow  diligently  her  good  vein.  I  trust 
hereafter  her  Highness  and  her  magistrates  will  prosecute 
severely  the  same  trade."1 

The  diocese  of  Ely  is  especially  serviceable,  for  our  pur- 
poses, as  supplying  two  returns  of  its  status  made  within 
three  years.  That  called  for  by  the  Privy  Council  in  the  sum- 
mer of  1563  (the  second  one),  enumerates  only  139  parishes, 
as  against  152  in  the  former  certificate;  but,  further  to  com- 
plicate matters,  attention  may  also  be  called  to  the  "  Douay 
Diaries"  total,  which  is  141.  The  number  of  households  in 
these  parishes  was  stated  to  be  7,367,  giving  an  average 
population  in  1563  of  36,835  souls.  Nothing  further  is  to  be 
gleaned  from  this  later  certificate,  except  that  the  number 
of  livings  stated  to  be  vacant  was  given  as  17,  two  vacancies 
being  caused  by  the  death  of  the  last  incumbent,  the  rest 
being  due  to  "exility  of  living."  The  wholesale  way  in  which 
these  vacant  livings  must  have  been  provided  for  between 
the  dates  of  the  two  returns,  will  doubtless  be  explained  by 
the  ease  with  which  unlettered  mechanics  were  ordained  in 
the  early  days  of  the  Elizabethan  settlement,  and  will  also 
account  for  the  low  opinion  expressed  by  Bishop  Cox  for 
the  character  and  attainments  of  the  conforming  clergy  at 
a  later  date.  Writing  to  Lord  Burghley  about  the  attempts 
then  being  made  to  suppress  the  "  prophesyings  "  as  they 
were  then  called — clergy  conferences  as  they  would  be 
named  to-day — he  upheld  their  desirability  and  usefulness, 
expressing  the  hope  that  the  Queen  "may  be  moved  to  have 
farther  consideration  of  this  matter.  And  when  the  great 
ignorance,  idleness  and  lewdness  of  the  great  number  of 
poor  and  blind  priests  in  the  clergy  shall  be  deeply  weighed 
and  considered  of,  it  will  be  thought  most  necessary  "  rather 
to  encourage  them."  The  certificate  about  the  Justices,  called 
for  in  the  autumn  of  1 564,  produced  a  letter  from  Bishop 
Cox,  in  which  he  gave  it  as  his  opinion  that  "true  religion" 

1  Lansd.  MS.  27,  No.  16,  29th  August,  1578. 

2  Ibid.,  25,  No.  29,  12th  June,  1577. 


392     TASK  OF  THE  ELIZABETHAN  BISHOPS 

was  "  dangerously  declining  in  the  most  parts  of  the 
churches  in  this  realm."  He  classified  the  Justices  within 
the  limits  of  his  own  jurisdiction  as  either  "  good,"  of  whom 
there  were  20;  "conformable,"  to  the  number  of  12  ;  or"  mis- 
liked,"  who  were  but  5,  and  included  Philip  Baker,  D.D., 
Provost  of  King's  College,  Cambridge,  and  Rector  of  Els- 
worth,  of  both  which  preferments  he  was  at  a  later  date 
deprived  as  being  a  Catholic.1  By  1577  this  vigilant  re- 
former had  succeeded  in  "  reducing  "  the  majority  of  his 
flock,  if  not  to  conformity,  at  least  from  Popery;  and  in 
the  return  of  "  recusants  to  come  to  church  "  which  he 
made  in  accordance  with  the  Privy  Council's  requisition,  on 
30th  October  of  that  year,  it  would  appear  that  he  could 
name  but  ten  recalcitrants,  one  of  whom  was  "  in  prison  in 
Cambridge  for  wilful  standing  in  his  errors."  The  Bishop 
explained  that  he  found  it  a  matter  of  difficulty  to  deal  with 
them,  because  when  he  endeavoured  to  "  reduce  them  from 
their  errors,"  "  some  of  the  chief  of  them  shifted  their  habi- 
tations out  of  this  shire  into  the  diocese  of  Norwich,  &c." 
yet  that  they  maintained  their  domiciles  in  Ely  diocese 
"  unto  the  which  by  starts  privily  they  resort." 2  This 
elusiveness,  resembling  a  game  of  hide-and-seek,  doubtless 
saved  many  a  Catholic  from  the  consequences  of  his  obstin- 
acy for  a  long  time. 

Lincoln  has  always  enjoyed  the  reputation  of  comprising 
the  largest  number  of  parishes  within  its  borders,  of  any 
diocese.  The  "Douay  Diaries"  list  gives  Lincoln  1,255 
churches;  the  returns  of  the  Privy  Council  made  in  1563 
mention  only  794.  The  difference,  as  is  most  likely,  will  be 
found  to  be  accounted  for  by  chapels  of  ease.  The  number 
of  households  throughout  the  diocese  was  53,148  at  that 
date,  giving  an  average  population  of  265,740  souls.3  No  in- 
formation can  be  gathered  from  either  of  these  documents 

1  Camden  Miscellany,  vol.  ix,  Bishops'  Letters,  1564,  pp.  23-6. 

-  P.R.O.  Dom.  Eliz.,  cxvn,  No.  28,  and  enclosure,  No.  28  i. 

3  Lansd.  MS.  23,  f.  39,  28th  July,  1563;  also  ibid.,  618,  which, 
though  undated,  must  from  internal  evidence  belong  to  the  same 
year. 


LINCOLN  393 

as  to  vacancies ;  it  must  be  sought  elsewhere.  A  return  of 
vacant  livings  made  for  the  Queen,  presumably  in  1 565,  men- 
tioned by  name  1 1 1  cures  without  incumbent  at  that  date.1 
On  Bishop  Watson's  deprivation  in  1559,  the  ecclesiastic 
selected  to  replace  him  was  Nicholas  Bullingham.  He  did 
not  leave  much  evidence  behind  him  that  will  serve  to 
throw  light  on  the  present  survey;  but  in  making  a  return 
to  the  Privy  Council  in  1564  as  to  the  Justices  acting  within 
the  limits  of  his  diocese,  he  showed  that  he  was  earnest  for 
the  suppression  of  Popery.  In  calling  the  Council's  atten- 
tion to  certain  disorders,  he  offered  a  series  of  suggested 
remedies,  amongst  which  occur  the  following:  "That  the 
said  commissioners  have  authority  to  reform  all  such 
papistical  orders  and  usages  in  Cathedral  and  Collegiate 
Churches  as  by  their  discretion  shall  appear  worthy  reforma- 
tion. Some  convenient  order  to  be  taken  with  the  Romish 
sectuaries,  as  well  being  in  durance  as  straggling  abroad, 
for  reformation  of  their  obstinacy  which  doth  much  harm 
amongst  the  people  of  God  and  the  Queen  her  Majesty's 
subjects."-  The  tabulated  lists  of  Justices  disclose  that 
there  were  106  "earnest";  against  these  were  precisely  half 
as  many  "  hinderers,"  namely,  53;  whilst  63  others  were 
"  indifferent,"  or  more  likely  to  prove  Papists  than  Reform- 
ers. Bullingham  was  translated  to  Worcester  in  1571,  and 
his  place  at  Lincoln  was  taken  by  Thomas  Cooper.  The 
reader  has  already  had  an  insight  into  this  prelate's  savagery 
of  character.'  In  making  his  reply  to  the  Privy  Council  in 
1577  about  recusants  to  attend  church  service,  he  excuses 
himself  as  follows:  "  If  my  certificate  do  not  note  unto  your 
honours  so  many  persons  as  in  these  corrupt  days  may 
seem  proportionable  to  so  large  a  circuit  as  my  diocese 
containeth,  I  humbly  desire  your  honours  favourably  to 
interpret  the  same,  and  not  to  impute  it  either  to  negligence 
in  searching,  or  to  timorousness  in  dealing  with  them.  I 
thank  God  there  is  none  within  my  diocese  with  whom  in 

:   P.R.O.  Dom.  Eliz.  Add.,  XII,  No.  108. 

2  Camden  Miscellany,  vol.  ix,  Bishops'  Letters,  1564,  p.  $"$. 

8    P.  Ivv 


394    TASK  OF  THE  ELIZABETHAN  BISHOPS 

this  quarrel  I  would  not  deal  boldly."  l  He  names  only  nine 
or  ten  persons  of  wealth  who  had  been  giving  him  much 
trouble ;  one  or  two  had  at  last  consented  to  attend  service 
but  would  not  communicate,  and  hence  he  did  not  put 
much  trust  in  their  promises  of  amendment.  He  concluded 
by  saying:  "  My  diocese  is  long;  it  cannot  be  but  there  are 
some  lurkers  unknown  to  me."  Some  of  his  officials  also 
wrote  on  their  own  account  to  the  Council;2  from  these 
communications  it  would  seem  that  the  diocese  of  Lincoln 
had  by  that  time  really  attained  a  degree  of  conformity 
somewhat  approaching  the  Bishop's  standard ;  for  though 
they  expressed  themselves  as  exceedingly  suspicious  about 
many  individuals,  yet  they  were  unable  to  charge  any 
directly  with  being  recusants.  But  the  Bishop  had  no  mind 
to  let  anyone  escape  his  zeal,  if  he  could  prevent  it,  more 
particularly  when  he  had  been  set  openly  at  defiance;  and 
on  14th  November,  1580,  he  wrote  at  length  to  Walsing- 
ham  in  order  to  get  a  Mrs.  Price  back  into  his  clutches, 
"otherwise  they  will  think  I  let  her  escape  of  purpose,  as 
being  content  to  wink  at  her  " — the  last  thing  he  was  likely 
to  do! 3  Evidence  then,  so  far  as  it  exists,  would  prove  that 
Lincoln  diocese  had  practically  ceased  to  be  Catholic,  but 
it  would  also  seem  that  the  zealous  Bishop  still  had  his 
doubts.  These  were  not  without  justification ;  for  on  24th 
July,  1580,  was  drawn  up  a  list  of  "names  of  persons  in- 
dicted in  Lincolnshire  for  attending  at  Mass,"  many  of 
whom  had  been  "  sundry  times  indicted  for  hearing  of 
Mass";  others  were  "  indicted  for  not  coming  to  service." 
The  list  contains  fifty-two  names,  including  such  well- 
known  ones  as  Dymoke,  Tyrwhitt,  Parker,  and  Thimbleby.' 
Coventry  and  Lichfield  diocese,  which  contained  some 
districts  which  long  remained  very  Catholic  in  sentiment, 
fell  to  the  lot  of  Thomas  Bentham,  who,  to  his  infinite 
credit  be  it  recorded,  returned  to  England  while  his  reform- 
ing  brethren  remained  in   Frankfort  and  Geneva  during 

1  P.R.O.  Dom.  Eliz.,  cxvn,  No.  13,  25th  October,  1577. 

2  Cf.  ibid.,  cxvn,  No.  19;  cxvin,  No.  9.         3  Ibid.,  cxliv,  No.  26. 
4  Lansd.  MS.  30,  No.  75. 


COVENTRY  AND  LICHFIELD  395 

Mary's  reign,  and  fearlessly  ministered  to  the  wants  of  the 
Protestants  who  still  lurked  in  London.  His  zeal  for  reform 
may  therefore  be  understood,  and  that  he  had  an  ample 
field  in  which  to  exercise  it.  The  first  information  about 
his  diocese  is  contained  in  the  return  he  made  concerning 
it  in  1563  to  the  Privy  Council.  He  held  spiritual  sway 
over  31,286  households,  or  a  population  of  156,43c.1  Other 
details  which  he  furnished  on  27th  July,  1563,  were  that 
the  diocese  contained  359  parishes,  eleven  of  them  being 
exempt  peculiars;  of  these  thirty-eight  were  void,  or  about 
9  per  cent.  The  "  Douay  Diaries "  list  ascribes  a  much 
higher  number  of  parishes  to  this  diocese,  putting  them  at 
55/.J  The  return  of  vacant  livings  made  for  the  Queen  in 
1565  names  twenty-nine  in  this  diocese  at  that  date.3  Next 
year,  when  called  upon  by  the  Council  to  tender  his  opinion 
about  the  Justices  of  his  diocese  and  other  matters  con- 
nected with  submission  to  the  State  religion,  he  suggested 
amongst  other  things:  "Whereas  the  country  is  too  much 
hinderly  in  all  good  things  pertaining  to  religion ;  yet  the 
abiding  of  Dr.  Poole,  late  Bishop  of  Peterborough,  in  that 
shire  [Staffordshire]  with  Bryan  Fowler,  Esquire,  a  little 
from  Stafford,  causeth  many  people  [to]  think  worse  of  the 
regiment  and  religion  than  else  they  would  do,  because  that 
divers  lewd  priests  have  resort  thither;  but  what  conference 
they  have  I  cannot  learn.  Wherefore  if  it  please  your 
honours  to  remove  him  from  thence,  you  shall  do  much 
good  to  the  country,  and  frustrate  the  expectation  of  evil 
disposed  persons.  .  .  .  Many  offenders  are  either  borne 
with  ...  or  else  fly  into  exempt  places  and  peculiar  juris- 
dictions, and  so  avoid  ordinary  correction."  The  summary 
of  the  Justices,  tabulated  according  to  their  supposed  re- 
ligious leanings,  shows  forty-seven  "favourers,"  fifteen 
hinderers,"  and  six  "  indifferent."  But  the  reader  is  re- 
quested to  observe  that  the  forty-seven  "  favourers  "  com- 
prise several  well-known  Catholics,  such  as  Bryan  Fowler 
who  suffered   fine  and  imprisonment   for  his  convictions. 

1  Hurl.  MS.  594,  No.  14,  f.  155.  -  Ibid.  594,  No.  15,  f.  172. 

3  P.R.O.  Dom.  Eliz.  Add.,  XII,  No.  108. 


396     TASK  OF  THE  ELIZABETHAN  BISHOPS 

Bishop  Bentham,  however,  put  down  this  gentleman's  name 
amongst  thirteen  Staffordshire  Justices  "meet  to  continue 
in  office,"  while  he  designated  four  others  as  "  a  knot  hurtful 
to  justice  and  great  maintainers"  or  "adversaries  of  religion." 
The  Bishop  specially  named  six  influential  gentlemen,  in- 
cluding Bryan  Fowler,  saying  that  they  were  "  accounted 
of  good  men  adversaries  to  religion  and  no  favourers  thereof, 
neither  in  deed  nor  word."  Three  of  this  group,  however, 
including  Bryan  Fowler,  though  "  no  favourers  of  religion," 
were  "  better  learned  than  the  rest,"  and  so  their  continued 
presence  on  the  bench  was  to  be  suffered.  Bishop  Bentham, 
like  others  of  his  episcopal  brethren,  though  ready  enough  to 
damage  honourable  gentlemen  by  stealth  and  behind  their 
backs,  either  by  his  own  or  his  officials'  reports,  was  not 
anxious  to  be  called  upon  to  stand  by  his  words  in  the  open. 
Thus,  he  pleaded:  "  concerning  the  hurtful  knot  and  Henry 
Vernon,  Esquire,  I  need  say  no  more.  For  I  look  that  that 
which  is  by  others  confessed  will  be  laid  to  my  charge,  if 
you  stand  not  my  good  Lords." ' 

On  28th  April,  1565,  he  drew  up  some  Instructions  for 
his  commissary,  Wm.  Sale,  prebendary  of  Weeford  in  his 
Cathedral,2  whom  he  charged  to  carry  out  a  visitation.  This 
action  had  evidently  been  forced  upon  him,  for  the  docu- 
ment opens :  "  whereas  I  and  my  diocese  are  accused  of 
disorders  used  of  my  clergy."  A  special  interest  attaches 
to  the  copy  of  these  Instructions  now  remaining  in  the 
Public  Record  Office,3  for  a  memorandum  on  it  states: 
"  This  is  Bishop  Bentham's  own  hand.  I  had  it  of  his  own 
son."  The  Instructions  to  be  given  to  the  clergy,  contain 
amongst  their  twenty-five  paragraphs,  certain  passages  it 
may  be  well  to  reproduce  here.  "(1)  That  your  altars  be 
clean  taken  away  and  that  there  be  no  monument  of  them 
left;  but  instead  thereof,  you  do  erect  a  decent  and  simple 
table  upon  a  frame  covered  with  a  fair  carpet  and  a  fine 
linen  table  cloth  upon  it  .  .  .  and  see  that  you  set  up  the 
Table  of  the  Commandments  in  the  place  where  the  Sacra- 

'   Camden  Miscellany,  vol.  ix,  Bishops'  Letters,  1564,  pp.  39-47. 
8  Le  Neve,  Fasti,  i,  p.  636.  3  Dom.  Eliz.,  xxxvi,  Nos.  41-2. 


COVENTRY  AND  LICHFIELD  397 

ment  did  hang,  with  other  godly  sentences  which  be  lately- 
set  forth.  (2)  That  you  call  upon  the  people  daily  that  they 
cast  away  their  beads  with  all  their  superstitions  that  they 
did  use  praying  upon  them;  and  to  follow  the  right  use  of 
prayer  which  doth  consist  in  lifting  up  the  mind  unto 
Almighty  God  calling  for  mercy  and  grace,  and  not  in 
numbering  of  their  beads,  prating  with  their  lips,  their 
hearts  and  minds  in  the  meantime  being  occupied  about 
their  worldly  business.  (4)  .  .  .  the  people  .  .  .  not  to  walk 
up  and  down  in  the  church,  nor  to  jangle,  babble  nor  talk 
in  service  time.  ...  (5)  That  you  cast  away  your  Mass- 
books,  your  portesses  and  all  other  books  of  Latin  service, 
.  .  .  and  in  any  wise  away  with  your  lights  at  the  burial 
of  the  dead.  ...  (8)  That  you  do  say  your  divine  service 
distinctly  .  .  .  and  not  to  mumble  nor  tumble  all  things 
without  devotion  as  you  did  at  such  time  you  had  the 
service  in  the  Latin  tongue.  (16)  They  [the  churchwardens] 
shall  diligently  note  and  mark  them  that  wear  any  beads; 
and  if  they  will  not  put  them  away,  [to  be  fined].  (17)  That 
.  .  .  your  parishioners  ...  set  not  down  the  corpse  of  any 
dead  body  by  any  cross  by  the  way,  as  they  bring  it  to  the 
burial,  nor  that  any  man,  woman,  nor  child  say  De  Pro- 
fundis  nor  the  Lord's  Prayer  for  the  dead.  .  .  .  (21)  That 
you  do  take  down  your  rood  lofts  unto  the  lower  beams 
and  do  set  a  comely  crest  or  '  wault '  upon  it.  .  .  .  and  that 
you  do  abolish  and  put  away  clean  out  of  your  church  all 
monuments  of  idolatry  and  superstition  as  holy  water 
stocks,  sepulchres  which  were  used  on  Good  Friday,  hand 
bells  and  all  manner  of  idols  which  be  laid  up  in  secret 
places  in  your  church  where  Latin  service  was  used,  and 
all  manner  of  books  that  were  used  in  the  church ;  and 
that  you  beat  down  all  manner  of  stones  and  blocks  where- 
upon images  were  set,  and  that  you  dam  up  all  manner  of 
hollow  places  in  your  chancel  or  church  walls,  and  that 
you  do  white-lime  your  church,  and  do  make  it  decent  and 
fair.  (23)  That  you  suffer  no  ringing  of  bells  for  the  dead 
but  only  to  knoll  a  bell  at  the  hour  of  death  for  the  space 
of  half  an  hour." 


398     TASK  OF  THE  ELIZABETHAN  BISHOPS 

These  quotations  show  that  Bishop  Bentham  was  aware 
that  such  practices  as  he  required  to  be  put  down  were  still 
in  vogue,  and  that  in  many  churches,  articles  connected 
with  the  worship  of  the  old  Faith  were  "  laid  up  in  secret 
places."  A  few  years  later  the  freedom  with  which  Catholics 
were  able  to  practice  their  religion  in  this  diocese,  was 
animadverted  upon  in  a  letter  to  Lord  Burghley  by  the 
Earl  of  Shrewsbury.  Writing  on  20th  January,  1572-3,  that 
nobleman  said:  "Since  my  last  letters  ...  I  have  caused 
diligent  search  to  be  made  in  Derbyshire,  and  Staffordshire 
and  a  part  of  Shropshire.  .  .  But  .  .  .  they  be  all  fled, 
saving  one  Avery,  servant,  ...  it  is  very  like  that  Avery 
can  discover  very  much  matter  right  necessary  to  be  known. 
...  I  caused  my  men  to  apprehend  one  Thomas  Comber- 
ford,  of  Comberford,  gent,  where  the  said  Revel  made  his 
most  abode  and  where  Masses  were  frequented.  And  also 
two  Mass  priests  that  have  said  so  many  Masses  (as  appear 
by  confession,  if  law  will  take  place,  as  I  dare  affirm  will 
amount  [in  fines]  unto  10,000  marks  at  least).  I  wish  that 
bishops  and  others  of  authority  in  the  countries  would  have 
more  regard  unto  their  charges  and  not  suffer  such  danger- 
ous vagabonds  to  rest  unpunished  in  their  jurisdictions."1 

When  the  Privy  Council,  in  the  autumn  of  1577,  required 
the  bishops  to  inform  them  about  the  wealthy  recusants  in 
their  respective  dioceses,  perhaps  the  fullest,  and  therefore 
to  us  most  satisfactory,  answer  was  furnished  by  Bishop 

'  Harl.  MS.  6991,  No.  12,  f.  25.  A  postscript  to  this  letter  runs  as  fol- 
lows :  "  I  thought  good  to  send  to  your  Lordship  the  plates  of  gold  that 
the  scholars  made  Revel  believe  to  have  virtue  of  getting  my  favour 
and  saving  him  from  all  perils.  .  .  ."  Upon  this  Humphrey  Wanley, 
librarian  to  the  Earl  of  Oxford,  has  inserted  the  following  luminous 
note, — a  sample  of  gratuitous  assumption  that  goes  far  to  explain  how 
some  history  is  "  made."  "  I  suppose,"  he  wrote,  "  the  Papists  procured 
this  Revel  to  be  willing  to  get  himself  into  the  service  of  the  Earl  her 
[Queen  of  Scots]  keeper  at  Sheffield  Castle ;  and  by  virtue  of  these 
charmed  plates  of  gold,  together  with  the  Masses  spoken  of  before  for 
the  good  success,  made  him  believe  he  should  get  into  his  favour,  and 
thereby  have  opportunity  either  of  killing  him,  or  making  him  willing 
to  wink  at  the  Queen's  escape."  Surely  there  are  some  credulous  fools 
in  the  world,  and  Humphrey  Wanley  was  one  of  these  in  his  day ! 


COVENTRY  AND  LICHFIELD  399 

Bentham.  His  covering  letter,  too,  is  a  highly  curious  and 
instructive  document,  for  it  may  possibly  serve  to  explain 
why  other  episcopal  returns  were  so  meagre.  It  is  to  be 
believed  that  throughout  England  the  under-sheriffs,  and, 
indeed,  the  gentry  in  general  who  had  already  conformed 
and  subscribed  the  oaths,  were  for  the  most  part  on  friendly 
terms  with  their  recusant  neighbours;  and  in  most  cases, 
even  though  they  were  themselves  conformers,  were  no 
favourers  of  the  persecuting  spirit  which  manifested  itself 
in  some  quarters.  It  thus  came  about  that  some  of  those 
who  held  public  offices  of  trust,  although  they  might 
scrupulously  comply  with  the  letter  of  their  instructions 
for  the  return  of  the  names  and  valuations  of  the  recusants 
within  the  limits  of  their  jurisdiction,  yet  not  infrequently 
they  could  hardly  have  fulfilled  their  spirit,  and  either 
frankly  expressed  inability  to  procure  the  required  informa- 
tion, or  else  made  returns  so  bald  and  jejune  as  to  give 
very  little  encouragement  and  less  help  to  the  authorities 
at  headquarters,  whether  ecclesiastical  or  civil.  The  proof 
of  this  is  ready  to  hand  in  the  State  records.  Bishop 
Bentham  was  determined,  however,  that,  in  his  diocese  at 
least,  the  efforts  of  the  Council  should  not  be  rendered 
abortive  through  the  slackness  of  other  officials,  so  he  sup- 
plemented the  returns  of  the  under-sheriffs  of  Staffordshire 
by  private  information  of  his  own.  His  letter  to  the  Council 
may  be  given  almost  in  its  entirety :  "...  I  have  had  and 
used  the  opinion  and  judgment  of  Mr.  Trentham  and  Mr. 
Bagott  for  the  state  of  Staffordshire,  which  I  find  to  be  so 
small  in  mine  opinion,  that,  where  they  give  any,  I  set  it 
down  rather  secretly  than  in  sight,  being  bold  to  signify 
unto  your  honours  mine  own  opinion  and  judgment  of  them 
in  open  view,  which  I  take  to  be  rather  too  little  than  too 
much,  considering  their  states  and  doings,  which  I  have 
known  above  these  sixteen  years.  .  .  .  Concerning  Warwick- 
shire I  do  not  understand  of  any  person  that  there  absenteth 
himself  from  church  in  this  case.  .  .  .  But  touching  Derby- 
shire and  so  much  of  Shropshire  as  is  of  my  jurisdiction  .  .  . 
I  have  only  sent  unto  you  the  names  of  such  as  have  been 


400    TASK  OF  THE  ELIZABETHAN  BISHOPS 

presented  and  are  openly  known  not  to  come  to  the  church 
...  I  dare  boldly  affirm  that  the  most  part  of  them  be  very 
wealthy."  l  The  accompanying  schedule  contains  the  names 
of  105  people  in  Staffordshire  alone  (besides  unnamed  and 
unnumbered  "servants"),  all  of  whom  are  at  least  what  we 
should  call  "  well-to-do  " ;  the  valuations  of  the  sheriffs  and 
of  the  Bishop  show  considerable  discrepancies  ;  thus  Richard 
Fitzherbert  of  the  parish  of  Hamstall  Ridware  is  assessed 
at  £3  6s.  Sd.  and  at  £100;  Erasmus  Wolseley  of  Colwich 
at  £26  13s.  4d.  and  at  £200;  Hugh  Erdeswick  of  Sondon 
at  £40  and  .£200 ;  Francis  Gatacre  of  Swynnerton  at 
£13  6s.  %d.  and  200  marks,  and  so  forth.  Three  names 
have  had  a  cross  prefixed  to  them,  evidently  to  mark  them 
out  as  retired  or  Marian  priests,  possibly  in  enjoyment  of  a 
pension.  They  are :  John  Bradbury,  chaplain  to  Mrs. 
Dorothy  Heveningham  of  Stone ;  Thomas  Chedleton,  clerk, 
of  Castlechurch ;  B.  Barber,  D.D.,  of  Penkridge.  The  list 
for  Derbyshire  contains  38  names,  and  that  for  part  of 
Shropshire  20  names,  besides  "  the  most  part "  of  the 
family  of  John  Talbot  of  Peperhill,  Esq.  "  John  Lathom, 
schoolmaster  to  the  Lady  Stanley  her  son  and  heir,"  has  a 
cross  prefixed  to  his  name,  evidently  marking  him  out  as 
being  in  reality  a  Marian  priest.  Although  this  lengthy 
list  of  163  (and  more)  names  might  have  been  considered 
ample,  nay  exhaustive,  it  did  not  satisfy  the  zealous  Bishop; 
so  he  set  to  work  to  revise  it,  and  on  the  following 
1st  February,  1577-8,  forwarded  the  result  to  the  Privy 
Council,  specifically  stating  as  his  reason  for  so  doing  that 
the  earlier  certificate  "  was  not  in  all  points  so  full  and  per- 
fect as  was  expected,"  due  to  the  short  time  allowed  for 
gathering  the  information.  Even  so,  notwithstanding  the 
care  and  trouble  the  Bishop  had  expended  on  the  work,  it 
was  not  all  that  he  would  have  wished.  He  wrote:  "  I  have 
here  sent  unto  you  the  same  certificate  in  effect  renewed 
and  augmented  so  much  as  I  can  learn,  either  by  myself  or 
such  as  I  have  put  good  confidence  in.  And  I  perceive  the 
case  to  be  of  great  difficulty  for  that  I  can  find  few  trusty 
1  P.R.O.  Dom.  Eiiz.,  cxvin,  No.  17,  10th  November,  1577. 


COVENTRY  AND  LICHFIELD  401 

to  deal  with,  and  fewer  willing  to  utter  what  they  know."  ' 
The  lists  enclosed  with  the  letter  give  118  names  in  Staf- 
fordshire, 53  in  Derbyshire,  and  27  for  part  of  Shropshire 
— 198  in  all;  compare  these  figures  with  the  163,  as  given 
in  the  first  return. 

Bishop  Bentham  died  in  1579,  and  was  succeeded  by 
William  Overton.  Into  the  details  of  his  episcopate  it  will 
be  unnecessary  to  enquire;  but  he  wrote  to  Walsingham 
that  he  had  "the  stubbornest  diocese  in  all  this  land,"2  and 
later,  he  justified  his  refusal  to  induct  a  clergyman  whom 
he  considered  unfit,  on  these  grounds:  "  considering  that  in 
Stafford  archdeaconry,  where  are  about  150  cures,  there 
are  scarce  the  thirtieth  parish  furnished  with  a  tolerable  * 
preacher:  the  country  otherwise  being  so  dangerous  and 
superstitious  .  .  ." s  It  remains  only  to  add  that  as  late  as 
1584,  Bishop  Overton  found  it  needful  to  formulate  the 
following  questions  for  the  visitation  he  then  held.  Besides 
the  stereotyped  enquiry  into  the  defacing  of  altars  and 
destruction  of  vestments  and  books,  he  further  wanted  to 
be  informed  if  the  ministers  "  be  known  or  suspected  as 
favourers  of  the  Romish  Church,  Superiority,  or  religion." 
Also  if  there  were  "  Massing  priests  .  .  .  known  or  suspected 
to  frequent  or  haunt  to  any  person  or  persons,"  etc.,  "  And 
whether  you  know  or  have  heard  of  any  sometime  in  Orders, 
that  now  do  live  as  lay  men?  "  4  These  and  such  like  queries 
afford  proof  that  the  Reformation  was  making  but  slow  and, 
to  some  extent  at  least,  unwilling  progress.  In  other  words, 
a  quarter  of  a  century  of  effort  had  not  succeeded  in  de- 
Catholicising  the  diocese  of  Coventry  and  Lichfield. 

1  P.R.O.  Dom.  Eliz.,  cxxn,  No.  28. 

2  Ibid.,  cxlix,  No.  37,  nth  June,  1581. 

3  Egerton  MS.  1693,  f.  118,  19th  July,  1584. 

*  Second  Report  of  Ritual  Commission,  1868,  p.  428. 


D  D 


CHAPTER  X 
The  Task  of  the  Elizabethan  Bishops 

III . —  The  Southern  Province  {continued) 

THE  diocese  of  Oxford,  having  been  carved  out  of 
Lincoln  when  Henry  VIII  increased  the  traditional 
number  of  English  Sees,  was  not  of  great  importance  either 
as  to  size  or  revenues,  nor  indeed  as  to  influence,  except 
perhaps  from  the  fact  that  within  its  confines  was  situated 
one  of  the  great  centres  of  English  thought  and  learning. 
It  was,  too,  during  no  inconsiderable  portions  of  Elizabeth's 
reign,  vacant;  hence,  perhaps,  the  subsidiary  role  it  played 
at  this  period  in  the  conflict  between  the  old  order  and  the 
new.  Robert  King,  first  Bishop  of  Oxford,  died  at  the  end 
of  1557,  from  which  time  the  See  was  vacant  till  the  trans- 
lation of  Hugh  Coren  {or  Curwen)  from  Dublin  in  1567.1 
This  prelate  died  the  following  year,  and  the  See  was  again 
vacant  till  1589,  and  yet  again  from  1592  to  1604.  As  a 
consequence  it  was  ruled  by  commission,  sede  vacante,  by 
the  Metropolitan.  Its  status  in  1563  does  not  appear  to  be 
forthcoming;  but  the  "  Douay  Diaries"  list  credits  it  with 
195  churches.  Lord  Burghley,  in  a  notice  of  the  number  of 
parsonages  and  vicarages  in  the  various  counties  extracted 
from  the  Exchequer  records  of  First  Fruits  and  Tenths, 
assigns  but  166  churches  to  Oxfordshire.2  Of  these,  ten  were 
returned  as  vacant  about  1565.3  It  fell  to  Archbishop 
Parker  to  make  a  return  of  the  religious  tendencies  of  its 
Justices  of  the  Peace  in  1564.    His  response,  showing  his 

1  Cf.  P.R.O.  Dom.  Eliz.,  xliii,  No.  61,  August,  1567. 

2  Old  Royal  Libr.  MS.  18,  D.  in,  f.  3. 

3  P.R.O.  Dom.  Eliz.  Add.,  XII,  No.  108. 

402 


OXFORD  403 

distaste  for  such  inquisitions,  has  already  been  quoted  l ; 
he  merely  enclosed  the  names  of  the  Oxfordshire  Justices 
without  further  note  or  comment;  there  were  thirteen  in 
the  diocese  outside  the  city  of  Oxford  whose  names  are 
wholly  undistinguished ;   within  the  city  there  were  nine, 
one  or  two  of  whom  were  undoubtedly  Catholics,  others  as 
certainly  Reformers.    Beyond  this  it  is  impossible  to  go.- 
When  Hugh  Curwen  was  brought  to  Oxford  from  Ireland 
in  1 567,  he  was  in  such  a  state  of  health  as  to  need  a  co- 
adjutor as  soon  as  he  was  appointed — "  in  his  such  im- 
potency,"  as  Archbishop  Parker  told  Cecil ;    at  the  same 
time  he  could  not  approve  of  those  suggested  by  Curwen, 
"  being,  I  fear,  of  such   inclination  that  neither  they  will 
serve  God  in  good  religion  nor  do  their  duty  to  the  Prince, 
their  contemplations  being  otherwhere  set."  3    George  Dan- 
vers  wrote  to  Cecil  on   28th  April,  1570,  to  say  that  "the 
25th  of  this  present  April,  being  at   Oxford  about  .  .  . 
privy  seals,  but  more  troubled  there  with  examination  of 
certain  Mass-mongers  about  their  celebrations  then  appre- 
hended, as  by  a  certificate  thereof,  if  you  have  not  already 
heard,  I  am  sure  you  shall  shortly  hear,  than  with,  etc."  4 
Seven  years  later,  when  the  Privy  Council  were  desirous  of 
finding  out  those  recusants  who  were  able  to  bear  the  drain 
of  fining,  Archbishop  Grindal  wrote  to  the  Dean  and  Chap- 
ter of  Oxford,  reciting  to  them  the  tenor  of  the  Council's 
letter  to  him.    In  transmitting  to  them  the  orders  therein 
contained  he  remarked :  "  I  am  informed,  that  the  diocese 
of  Oxford  is  more  replenished  with  such  recusants,  for  the 
quantity  thereof,  than  any  other  diocese  of  this  realm."  s 
His  information  was  not  inaccurate.  Dr.  Herbert  Westfaling, 
then   canon    of  Christ    Church,    Oxford,   later  to  become 
Bishop  of  Hereford,  sent  the  desired  return  to  Archbishop 

1  P.  345- 

2  Camden  Miscellany,  vol.  be,  Bishop?  Letters,  1564,  pp.  81-2. 

3  Parker  Corresp.,  p.  305,  No.  235,  5th  October,  1567. 
1  P.R.O.  Dom.  Eliz.,  lxvii,  No.  76. 

5  Remains    of  Abp.    Gri?idal,    p.    362,    No.    84,    18th    November, 
1577- 


404     TASK  OF  THE  ELIZABETHAN  BISHOPS 

Grindal  on  3rd  December  following.  He  alleged  many 
reasons  as  excuse  for  its  want  of  fulness,  quite  needlessly 
it  might  seem,  amongst  others,  "  the  lothness  of  many  to 
utter  their  knowledge  .  .  .  and  yet  when  all  is  done,  I 
think  it  will  not  answer  the  report  that  goeth  of  this  dio- 
cese; for  though  these  that  are  named  in  this  certificate  be 
too  many ;  yet  by  reason  of  the  common  speech  I  looked 
myself  to  have  found  in  the  visitation  a  great  store  more." 1 
The  certificate  contained  the  names  of  119  "presented  or 
otherwise  thought  not  at  all  to  come  to  divine  service,"  21 
"  that  have  not  been  known  to  receive  the  Communion  this 
year  or  more,  but  come  sometimes  to  the  church,"  and  10 
**.  that  come  very  seldom  to  divine  service."  These  1 50 
"  suspects,"  were  exclusive  of  members  of  the  University, 
whose  tendencies  have  already  been  to  some  extent  ana- 
lysed. Archbishop  Grindal  further  certified  that  those 
whose  names  were  included  in  the  two  smaller  categories 
had  made  promise  to  amend  their  faults.2  It  may  be  noted 
that  this  interesting  list  contains  such  well-known  Catholic 
names  as  Arden,  Belson,  Davey,  Etheredge,  Greenwood, 
Roland  Jenks,  Oglethorpe,  Owen,  Piggott,  Pitts,  Sheldon, 
Stonor,  and  Yate.  Again,  at  some  date  before  the  death  of 
Archbishop  Heath  on  5th  May,  1579,  a  list  of  recusants 
was  drawn  up  for  purposes  of  taxation  for  levying  of 
musters.  The  limit  for  inclusion  was  £40  and  upwards  in 
value  of  land,  £200  and  upwards  in  value  of  goods.  Ox- 
ford contributed  forty  names  to  the  total,3  repeating  many 
of  those  mentioned  above. 

The  diocese  of  Sarum  brings  the  reader  into  touch  with 
one  of  the  most  remarkable  men  of  the  period,  John  Jewel, 
the  famous  apologist  of  the  Established  Church.  He  was  a 
Reformer  during  Edward's  reign,  abjured  those  tenets  on 
Mary's  accession  to  save  his  skin,  but  later  fled  to  the  Con- 
tinent, and  bewailed  the  temporary  weakness  of  which  he 
had  been  guilty.  When  Mary  passed  away  he  returned  to 
England  and  took   part  in   the  Westminster  Conference, 

1  P.R.O.  Dom.  Eliz.,  CXIX,  No.  5.  2  Ibid.,  CXix,  No.  5  i. 

3  Ibid.,  cxlii,  No.  33. 


SALISBURY  405 

which  he  described  with  some  minuteness  and  more  bias  to 
Peter  Martyr,  but  rightly  designated  it  "  an  useless  confer- 
ence, and  one  which  indeed  can  hardly  be  considered  as 
such." '  Being  a  man  of  energy  and  action,  he  chafed  under 
the  delays  occasioned  by  the  procedure  of  settling  religion 
by  parliamentary  debate  and  vote;  hence  in  his  next  letter 
to  Martyr  he  reminded  him  that  their  "  adversaries  acted 
always  with  precipitancy  .  .  .  while  we  manage  everything 
with  so  much  deliberation,  and  prudence,  and  wariness,  and 
circumspection.  .  .  .  This  dilatoriness  has  grievously 
damped  the  spirits  of  our  brethren,  while  it  has  wonderfully 
encouraged  the  rage  and  fury  of  our  opponents.  Indeed, 
you  would  hardly  believe  with  how  much  greater  boldness 
they  now  conduct  themselves  than  they  ever  did  before ; 
yet  the  people  everywhere,  and  especially  the  whole  of  the 
nobility,  are  both  disgusted  with  their  insolent  exaltation, 
and  exceedingly  thirsty  for  the  Gospel.  Hence  it  has  hap- 
pened, that  the  Mass  in  many  places  has  of  itself  fallen  to 
the  ground,  without  any  laws  for  its  discontinuance.  .  .  . 
Meanwhile  many  alterations  in  religion  are  effected  in  Par- 
liament, in  spite  of  the  opposition  and  gainsaying  and 
disturbance  of  the  bishops.  These,  however,  I  will  not 
mention,  as  they  are  not  yet  publicly  known,  and  are  often 
brought  on  the  anvil  to  be  hammered  over  again."  2  Writing 
on  28th  April,  he  complained:  "As  yet  not  the  slightest 
provision  has  been  made  for  any  of  us."  3  Then  when  the 
Parliament  had  risen  and  people  were  able  to  take  stock  of 
what  the  new  religious  legislation  implied,  he  was  dis- 
satisfied with  the  gains  of  his  party,  and  with  the  small 
share  they  had  had  in  the  shaping  of  the  results.  "  So 
miserably  is  it  ordered,"  he  wrote  to  Martyr,  "  that  false- 


1  4  Jewel,  p.  1204,  Letter  IX,  6th  April,  1559;  Habes  hnvfy  ±ts\? 
et  pene  ovevteuktov. 

"  4  Jewel,  p.  1205,  Letter  x,  14th  April,  1559. 

3  4  Jewel,  p.  1208,  Letter  XI.  Cf.  also,  Letter  xm,  p.  1212,  which 
better  explains  this  allusion :  "  not  one  of  us  has  yet  had  even  his  own 
property  restored  to  him."  Cf.  also,  Letter  xvm,  p.  1223,  5th  Novem- 
ber, 1559. 


4o6     TASK  OF  THE  ELIZABETHAN  BISHOPS 

hood  is  armed,  while  truth  is  not  only  unarmed,  but  also 
frequently  offensive.  The  scenic  apparatus  of  divine  wor- 
ship is  now  under  agitation ;  and  those  very  things  which 
you  and  I  have  so  often  laughed  at  are  now  seriously  and 
solemnly  entertained  by  certain  persons  (for  we  are  not 
consulted)  as  if  the  Christian  religion  could  not  exist  with- 
out something  tawdry."  '  His  views  toned  down  when  the 
weight  of  the  mitre  was  on  his  brow.2  He  also  mentioned  the 
appointment  of  various  reformers  to  some  of  the  Sees,  and 
informed  Martyr  that  "  a  commission  is  now  appointed  for 
the  whole  of  England,  with  a  view  to  the  establishment  of 
religion.  Sandys  will  go  into  Lancashire,  I  into  Devon- 
shire, others  into  other  parts."  On  ist  August,  1559,  he  an- 
nounced to  Martyr  his  own  appointment  to  the  bishopric 
of  Salisbury,  though  he  assured  him  that  "  this  burthen  I 
have  positively  determined  to  shake  off." 3  He  was,  too, 
on  the  point  of  setting  out  on  the  work  of  the  ecclesiastical 
commission  to  which  he  had  referred  in  a  previous  letter. 
"  I  have  now  one  foot  on  the  ground,  and  the  other  almost 
on  my  horse's  back.  I  am  on  the  point  of  setting  out  upon 
a  long  and  troublesome  commission  for  the  establishment 
of  religion,  through  Reading,  Abingdon,  Gloucester,  Bris- 
tol, Bath,  Wells,  Exeter,  Cornwall,  Dorset,  and  Salisbury. 
The  extent  of  my  journey  will  be  about  700  miles,  so 
that  I  imagine  we  shall  hardly  be  able  to  return  in  less 
than  four  months."  l  The  next  letter,  dated  2nd  Novem- 
ber, 1559,  gives  Martyr,  soon  after  he  had  "returned  to 
London  with  a  body  worn  out  by  a  most  fatiguing  jour- 
ney," some  general  account  of  the  results  of  his  labours, 
quoted  elsewhere.'1  The  gist  of  his  remarks  may  be  summed 
up  in  one  triumphant  sentence:  "the  ranks  of  the  Papists 
have  fallen  almost  of  their  own  accord " ;  and  yet,  in  the 
same  breath,  he  admitted  that  it  was  "  no  easy  matter  to 

1  4  Jewel,  p.  1210,  Letter  XII. 

2  Cf.  4  Jewel,  p.  1272,  Letter  xliv,  24th  February,  1567-8,  to  Bul- 
linger. 

3  Cf.  also,  p.  1221,  Letter  xvn,  2nd  November,  1559. 

1  4  Jewel,  p.  1215,  Letter  xiv.  5  P.  177. 


SALISBURY  407 

drag  the  chariot  without  horses,  especially  up-hill."    With- 
out doubt  the  reference  was  to  the  departure  of  such  clergy 
as  refused  to  conform ;  the  "  up-hill  "  nature  of  the  work  as 
surely  indicates  the  opposition  already  shown,  and,  as  will 
be  seen,  which  continued  to  be  displayed  for  long  after.1    On 
the  same  date  Jewel  wrote  to  Josiah  Simler,"  and,  as  from 
a  previous  letter  the  reader  will  have  judged  of  Jewel's 
Puritan   tendencies,  from  his  contemptuous    reference  to 
ritual,' so,  by  this  one,  that  impression  will  be  strengthened. 
"  As  to  your  expressing  your  hopes  that  our  bishops  will 
be   consecrated   without    any   superstitious    and    offensive 
ceremonies,  you  mean,  I  suppose,  without  oil,  without  the 
chrism,  without  the  tonsure.    And  you  are  not  mistaken ; 
for  the  sink  would  indeed  have  been  emptied  to  no  purpose 
if  we  had  suffered  those  dregs  to  settle  at  the  bottom. 
Those  oily,  shaven,  portly  hypocrites  we  have  sent  back  to 
Rome  from  whence  we  first  imported  them.    For  we  re- 
quire our  bishops  to  be  pastors,  labourers,  and  watchmen."  4 
On  2 1st  January,  1559-60,  Jewel  was  consecrated  without 
the  ancient    rites    his   soul    so   abominated;    and    yet,   so 
strongly  did  he  feel  on  the  question  of  the  retention  of  the 
cross  on  the  Communion  tables  of  the  new  Faith,  that  he 
was  prepared  at  once  to  relinquish  his  See  rather  than  con- 
sent to  their  being  reintroduced.    "  Matters  are  come  to  that 
pass,"  he  wrote  to  Peter  Martyr, "  that  either  the  crosses  of 
silver  and  tin,  which  we  have  everywhere  broken  in  pieces, 
must  be  restored,  or  our  bishoprics  relinquished." ' 

It  has  been  necessary  to  give  these  various  references  to 
Jewel's  correspondence,  for  they  exhibit  the  tendency  of  the 
mind  which  largely  shaped  the  policy  of  the  Establishment, 
and  which  most  ably  championed  it  against  its  opponents 

1  Cf.  4  Jewel,  p.  12 17,  Letter  xv.  2  Letter  xvi,  p.  1221. 

3  Cf.  too,  p.  1223,  Letter  xvm,  5th  November,  1559,  in  which  he 
speaks  of  scenic  dress,  veste  scenica,  and  theatrical  dress,  veste  iovi/ca, 
etc.;  and  p.  1225,  Letter  xix,  16th  November,  1559. 

4  The  original  reads  thus :  "  Unctos  istos,  et  rasos,  et  personatas 
ventres  Romam  remisimus,"  etc. 

"  4  Jewel,  p.  1229,  Letter  xxi,  4th  February,  1559-60. 


4o8     TASK  OF  THE  ELIZABETHAN  BISHOPS 

and  detractors.  So  busily,  indeed,  was  he  engaged  over 
public  business — "  prevented  by  a  thousand  hindrances  " — 
that  he  did  not  reach  his  diocese  till  23rd  May.  He  was 
pleased  it  turned  out  so,  for  the  spire  of  Salisbury  Cathe- 
dral was  struck  by  lightning  on  7th  May;  and  Jewel  re- 
marked to  Martyr:  "It  so  happened  that  I  had  not  yet 
arrived  there:  had  I  done  so,  so  foolish  and  superstitious 
are  men's  minds,  that  all  this  mischief  would  have  been  as- 
cribed to  my  coming.  I  shall,  however,  go  thither  to- 
morrow." l  This  little  incident  shows  that  Jewel's  flock 
were  not  thought  by  him  to  be  in  sympathy  with  him.  The 
same  letter  states  with  approval  that  several  persons, 
bishops  and  others,  had  been  "  sent  to  prison,  for  having 
obstinately  refused  attendance  on  public  worship,  and 
everywhere  declaiming  and  railing  against  that  religion 
which  we  now  profess.  For  the  Queen  .  .  .  declared  that 
she  would  not  allow  any  of  her  subjects  to  dissent  from  this 
religion  with  impunity."  While  still  in  London  between 
the  date  of  his  consecration  and  of  his  taking  formal  pos- 
session of  his  See,  he  preached  at  Paul's  Cross  the  famous 
sermon  against  transubstantiation,  in  the  course  of  which 
he  threw  out,  for  a  second  time,  his  celebrated  challenge,  pro- 
mising that  if  he  were  convinced  of  error  he  would  submit. 
But  a  perusal  of  the  challenge a  will  exhibit  it  to  a  candid 
reader  as  somewhat  disingenuous,  for  it  is  a  medley  of  doc- 
trine and  practice,  of  revelation  and  observance  of  human 
and  therefore  changeable  law  and  custom,  which  must  have 
proved  wholly  confusing  to  any  but  a  trained  mind.  Dr. 
Henry  Cole,  though  in  prison,  took  him  at  his  word,  and  a 
correspondence  ensued,  which  from  the  nature  of  the  cir- 
cumstances attending  it,  could  only  be  one-sided  and  end 
one  way — in  a  cheap  victory  for  Jewel.  But  the  cudgels 
were  taken  up  to  some  purpose  by  Dr.  Thomas  Harding,  a 
fugitive  living  in  Louvain:  Jewel  had  to  answer  his  doughty 
opponent,  and  the  able  Apology  for  the  Church  of  England 
was  the  result,  published  in  1 562.  This  elicited  from  Harding 

1  4  Jewel,  p.  1234,  Letter  xxm,  22nd  May,  1560. 
3  Cf.  1  Jewel,  p.  20-1. 


SALISBURY  409 

his  "  Answer  to  the  Apology,"  which  was  countered  by 
Jewel's  "  Reply " ;  whereupon  Harding  rejoined  with  his 
"  Confutation  of  the  Apology,"  drawing  from  Jewel  his 
"  Defence  of  the  Apology,"  published  in  1 567. l  The  Earl 
of  Warwick  asked  Archbishop  Parker  "to  grant  an  injunc- 
tion .  .  .  that  every  minister  may  be  bound  to  have  one  " ; J 
and  later,  Archbishop  Parker  suggested  to  Bishop  Park- 
hurst  of  Norwich  that  he  should  "  commend  the  late  Bishop 
of  Sarum's  last  book  to  be  had  in  the  rest  of  the  parish 
churches  within  your  diocese,  wherein  they  be  not." 3 
Parkhurst  did  not  approve  of  the  idea,  for  as  the  book 
printed  Harding's  objections,  he  thought  it  might  "  be  a 
great  occasion  to  confirm  the  adversaries  in  their  opinions, 
that  having  not  wherewith  to  buy  Harding's  books,  shall 
find  the  same  already  provided  for  them ;  where  like  unto 
the  spider  sucking  only  that  may  serve  their  purposes,  and 
contemning  that  is  most  wholesome,  will  not  once  vouch- 
safe to  look  upon  the  same."4  This  digression  may  be 
pardoned  as  its  purpose  is  to  show  the  important  position 
held  by  Jewel  amongst  the  Elizabethan  prelates.  Return- 
ing, now,  to  the  survey  of  Jewel's  episcopal  work,  it  may  be 
noted  that  on  6th  November,  1560,  he  informed  Martyr 
that  "  I  am  now  preparing  for  the  assembling  of  my  clergy, 
and  the  visitation  of  my  diocese."  5  He  further  said:  "our 
Church,  by  the  blessing  of  God,  is  at  length  at  peace  .  .  . 
we  are  only  wanting  in  preachers;  and  of  these  there  is  a 
great  and  alarming  scarcity.  The  schools  also  are  entirely 
deserted;  so  that,  unless  God  look  favourably  upon  us,  we 
cannot  hope  for  any  supply  in  future."  It  is  true  these 
words  may  be  understood  generally,  and  that  they  may  be 
taken  to  apply  to  the  whole  of  England;  but  it  maybe  also 
that  they  are  the  result  of  his  outlook  over  his  own  diocese. 
Whichever  way  they  are  taken,  however,  they  are  of  in- 

1   Cf.  Did.  Nat.  Biogr.,  xxix,  p.  380. 

-  Parker  Corresp.,  p.  319,  No.  243,  3rd  May,  1568. 

3  Ibid.,  p.  417,  No.  319,  24th  February,  1572-3. 

'  Ibid.,  p.  417,  note. 

6  4  Jewel,  p.  1 24 1,  Letter  xxvi. 


410     TASK  OF  THE  ELIZABETHAN  BISHOPS 

terest.  The  same  may  be  said  of  his  verdict — "  the  ob- 
stinacy of  the  Papists  is  now  greater  than  ever," — which  he 
gave  to  Peter  Martyr  at  a  later  date.1  What  transpired  in 
that  visitation  may  possibly  find  a  place  in  Jewel's  Regis- 
ter: but  nothing  has  survived  in  his  correspondence.  How- 
ever, something  may  be  learned  about  the  diocese  from  the 
information  he  had  to  furnish  to  the  Privy  Council  in  1 563. 
He  catalogued  448  churches  and  chapels  where  the  "  Douay 
Diaries "  list  mentions  but  248.  A  portion  of  the  dis- 
crepancy is  accounted  for  by  the  fact  that  Jewel's  grand 
total  includes  54  exempts  or  peculiars.  With  this  total  of 
394  may  be  compared  a  note  of  Lord  Burghley's 2  in  which 
he  enumerates  401  parsonages  and  vicarages  in  Wiltshire 
and  Berkshire.  Of  these,  Jewel  admitted  that  three  were 
simply  "void  ";  two  "void:  a  curate";  but  37  livings  were 
put  down  with  a  "  curate  only,  or  ought  to  have,"  showing 
either  that  they  had  not,  or  else  indicating  the  Bishop's 
own  uncertainty  on  the  point.5  But  in  a  return  of  vacant 
livings  made  for  the  Queen's  information,  probably  in 
1565,  Sarum  would  appear  to  have  not  three  but  fourteen 
such.4  When  called  upon  in  1564  to  give  his  opinion  about 
the  religious  "  inclination  towards  the  furtherance  of  God's 
truth  "  of  the  Justices  of  Berkshire  and  Wiltshire,  he  tabu- 
lated them  as  10  "  furtherers  earnest,"  8  "  furtherers,"  and 
10  "  no  hinderers."  He  likewise  recommended  4  gentlemen 
for  inclusion  in  the  commission.  Against  these  18  stalwart 
and  10  lukewarm  supporters,  he  had  the  satisfaction  of 
having  to  name  but  three  Catholics  openly  and  firmly  op- 
posed to  the  Reformation.  These  were  "  Edmund  Plowden 
of  Shiplake,  as  it  is  supposed,  a  hinderer," — a  matter  on 
which  there  should  never  have  been  a  doubt ;  "  William 
Hyde  of  Denchworthe,  no  furtherer,"  and  "  Jo.  Yate  of 
Buckland,  never  yet  received  the  holy  Communion  since 
the  beginning  of  the  Queen's  Majesty's  reign,  and  therefore 

'  4  Jewel,  p.  1256,  Letter  xxxm,  14th  August,  1562. 

2  Old  Royal  Libr.  MS.  18,  D.  ill,  f.  3. 

3  Harl.  MS.  595,  No.  27,  f.  195,  19th  July,  1563. 

4  P.R.O.  Dom.  Eliz.  Add.,  xn,  No.  108. 


SALISBURY  411 

now  excommunicate,  and  returned  into  the  King's  Bench 
for  the  same."  ' 

Writing  to  Simler  on  23rd  March,  1563-4,  Bishop  Jewel, 
speaking  about  the  Ubiquitarians  troubling  his  German 
colleague,  said:  "our  Church,  by  the  blessing  of  God,  is 
free  from  these  monsters.  We  have  only  to  do  with  some 
of  the  popish  satellites,  who  are  making  as  much  disturb- 
ance as  they  can  in  their  corners  and  hiding-places."2  His 
activity  was  great  with  pen  and  tongue,  for,  besides  his 
printed  controversies,  which  occupied  much  of  his  time,  he 
was  indefatigable  in  going  about  his  diocese  preaching; 
and  again  early  in  1569  he  made  another  visitation  of  his 
See.5  His  labours  were  ended  by  death,  in  September,  1571. 
Edmund  Ghest  was  transferred  from  Rochester  to  replace 
him,  and  died  as  Bishop  of  Salisbury  early  in  1 577,  without 
leaving  any  record  behind  him  of  dealings  with  recusants. 
John  Piers,  who  had  succeeded  him  in  Rochester,  also 
followed  him  to  Salisbury;  during  his  occupancy  of  it,  it 
naturally  fell  to  him  to  make  the  returns  about  the  recusant 
members  of  his  flock  asked  for  by  the  Privy  Council.  Some 
of  these  were  furnished  by  himself,  some  by  lay  officers  of 
the  Crown.  In  1577  the  diocese  is  represented  by  59  names 
of  Catholics,  many  of  whom  were  people  of  considerable 
means ;  49  lived  in  Berkshire,  the  remainder  in  Wiltshire.4 
The  Earl  of  Pembroke  in  forwarding  the  short  Wiltshire  list, 
remarks:  "some  other  there  be  that  are  much  suspected  ": 
hence  the  list  is  evidently  incomplete;  but  it  is  interesting 
as  showing  that  those  whose  names  were  sent  up,  had  one 

1  Camden  Miscellany,  vol.  ix,  Bishops'  Letters,  1564,  pp.  37-9.  For 
further  details  about  these  Justices,  more  especially  the  famous  Ed- 
mund Plowden,  cf.  P.R.O.  Dom.  Eliz.,  LX,  No.  47,  and  enclosures, 
22nd  December,  1569;  also,  to  prove  that  after  the  publication  of  the 
Bull  in  1570,  Plowden  ceased  to  conform  outwardly,  cf.  P.R.O.  Dom. 
Eliz.  cxliv,  Nos.  45,  46,  2nd  December,  1580. 

-  4  Jewel,  p.  1261,  Letter  xxxvn. 

3  Ibid.,  p.  1274,  Letter  xlvi,  18th  January,  1568-9. 

4  P.R.O.  Dom.  Eliz.,  cxvn,  Nos.  17  and  17  i,  Bp.  Piers  and  Hy. 
Nevill  to  the  Council,  26th  October,  1577;  P.R.O.  Dom.  Eliz.,  cxvn, 
Nos.  26  and  2&  i,  Earl  of  Pembroke  to  the  Council,  28th  October,  1577. 


4i2     TASK  OF  THE  ELIZABETHAN  BISHOPS 

and  all  steadily  refused  to  go  to  Communion,  some  since 
the  beginning  of  the  Queen's  reign.  Further,  a  certain 
George  Brytayne  of  Monkton  Farley,  "  hath  passed  away 
his  estate  in  Monkton  Farley  and  takes  it  now  by  lease  " — 
an  ingenious  method  of  trying  to  evade  forfeiture.  In  a 
general  list  of  recusants  in  the  various  counties  to  show 
those  who  held  land  or  goods  above  a  fixed  minimum, 
Berkshire  yielded  18,  and  Wiltshire  5  names — 23  in  all.1 
Not  long  after,  "  an  information  concerning  certain  recu- 
sants in  Berkshire  "  contained  the  names  of  twenty-seven 
people.    The  paper  is  otherwise  of  little  value.2 

Robert  Home  was  Dean  of  Durham  during  Edward's 
reign :  this  post  he  lost  together  with  all  his  other  prefer- 
ments when  Mary  came  to  the  throne,  but  escaped  to 
Zurich.  He  remained  abroad  till  Mary's  death  permitted 
of  his  return  to  England,  and  was  at  once  restored  to  the 
deanery  of  Durham.  On  the  deprivation  of  White,  then 
Bishop  of  Winchester,  in  November,  1560,  Home  was 
nominated  to  succeed  him,  and  was  consecrated  by  Arch- 
bishop Parker  on  16th  February,  1560-1/  and  filled  that 
See  for  just  the  period  covered  by  this  enquiry,  that  is,  till 
his  death  in  1580.  He  was  strongly  Puritan  in  his  convic- 
tions 4 ;  and  it  is  noticeable  that  his  life's  work  was  cast 
always  amid  antagonistic  surroundings.  As  he  found  him- 
self in  the  extreme  north  at  Durham  the  head  of  a  Catholic 
Chapter,  and  the  leader  of  a  Catholic  laity,  so  when  re- 
moved to  the  extreme  south,  he  lived  and  moved  in  a 
similar  atmosphere.  The  Marquess  of  Winchester,  writing 
to  Cecil  a  few  days  after  the  Act  of  Uniformity  came  into 

1  P.R.O.  Dom.  Eliz.,  CXLll,  No.  33,  circa  1579. 

-  Cotton  MS.  Titus  B.  ill,  No.  23,  f.  63;  undated,  but  after  1581, 
for  it  speaks  of  Sir  Fr.  Drake,  who  was  knighted  in  that  year. 

3  Diet.  Nat.  Biogr.,  xxvii,  p.  360. 

4  Writing  a  common  letter  with  Grindal  to  Bullinger  and  Gualter, 
he  mentions  with  approval  that  "The  Church  of  England,  too,  has 
entirely  given  up  the  use  of  [prayers  in]  a  foreign  tongue,  breathings, 
exorcisms,  oil,  spittle,  clay,  lighted  tapers,  and  other  things  of  that 
kind,  which,  by  the  Act  of  Parliament,  are  never  to  be  restored." 
I  Zur.,  p.  178,  No.  75,  6th  February,  1566-7. 


WINCHESTER  413 

operation,  said :  "  This  Friday  morning,  I  sent  you  my  son 
St.  John's  letter,  sent  me  from  Hampshire,  with  other 
writings  made  by  the  Dean  and  Canons  of  the  Cathedral 
Church,  and  from  the  Warden  and  Fellows  of  the  New 
College,  and  from  the  Master  of  St.  Cross',  whereby  it  ap- 
peareth  they  leave  their  service  and  enter  to  no  new,  be- 
cause it  is  against  their  conscience,  as  it  appeareth  by  their 
writings,  wherein  order  must  be  taken.  .  .  ."  1  At  the  same 
time,  the  Bishop  of  Aquila  wrote  to  King  Philip:  "the 
news  is  that  in  the  neighbourhood  of  Winchester  they  have 
been  unwilling  to  receive  the  service  book  which  is  the 
Office  which  these  heretics  have  made  up;  and  that  the 
clergy  of  the  diocese  have  met  to  consult  as  to  what  they 
ought  to  do ;  and  that  no  Mass  was  being  said,  at  which 
the  laity  were  much  disturbed."  2  A  few  days  later  he  in- 
formed his  master  that:  "  It  is  certain  that  in  the  diocese 
of  Winchester  they  have  not  accepted  it  [i.e.,  the  new  form 
of  religion],  nor  will  they  take  the  oath;  and  that  all  is 
now  in  confusion,  and  that  up  to  now  they  have  not  ven- 
tured to  press  (or  punish)  them."3  Shortly  after  Bishop 
Home  entered  on  his  charge,  he  undertook  a  much-needed 
visitation  of  his  diocese.  Some  time  after  he  had  com- 
menced this  duty,  he  reported  progress  to  Sir  William 
Cecil.  "  Hitherto  I  have  proceeded  in  my  visitation  through 
Surrey  and  a  good  part  of  this  shire,  and  so  am  going  for- 
ward to  Southampton  and  the  Isle  of  Wight.  As  to  the 
state  of  that  I  have  passed,  for  such  as  have  hitherto  ap- 
peared before  me,  I  have  not  found  any  repugning  to  the 
ordinances  of  the  realm  concerning  religion,  neither  the 
ministers  dissenting  from  the  same,  but  conforming  them- 
selves as  it  was  required  of  them,  and  in  testification 
thereof  have  subscribed  to  the  declaration  for  Uniformity  of 
doctrine."  So  far  the  letter  conveys  the  impression  that 
Bishop  Home  found  all  ready  to  submit  themselves  to  the 
change;  but  then  comes  the  corrective:  "Nevertheless  I 

1  P.R.O.  Dom.  Eliz.,  iv,  No.  72,  30th  June,  1559;  see,  too,  p.  168. 

2  Chron.  Belg.,  i,  p.  544,  No.  ccclix,  27th  June,  1559;  see,  too,  p.  175. 

3  Ibid.,  i.  p.  548,  No.  CCCLXH,  1st  July,  1559. 


4H     TASK  OF  THE  ELIZABETHAN  BISHOPS 

have  found  many  absent,  and  many  churches  destitute  of 
incumbents  and  ministers  and,  much  more,  of  good  and 
able  men  to  perform  the  charge,  and  many  churches  of  so 
small  livings  as  they  cannot  entertain  any  minister  at  all. 
The  absence  of  many  proceedeth  partly  through  the  wilful- 
ness of  some  who  have  purposely  withdrawn  themselves,  or 
otherwise  under  colour  absenting  them,  and  partly  under 
pretence  that  they  serve  noblemen,  against  all  which  I 
mean  to  proceed  as  may  seem  best  to  appertain,  meaning 
to  have  them  come  to  me,  my  visitation  ended." '  A  state- 
ment contained  in  this  interesting  letter  is  endorsed  in  a 
remarkable  way  by  a  contemporary  document.  In  the  first 
place,  Lord  Burghley  once  made  a  note  of"  the  number  of  all 
the  parsonages  and  vicarages  within  every  city  and  county 
of  the  realm  of  England,  extracted  out  of  the  Queen's 
Majesty's  records  of  the  First  Fruits  and  Tenths  remaining 
in  the  Exchequer."-  This  gives  in  all  8731  livings.  There 
is  a  volume  in  the  State  archives,  a  Register  of  grants  of 
dispensation  to  hold  benefices  in  plurality,  during  the  years 
1560-70.3  This  also  was  known  to  and  used  by  Lord 
Burghley,  in  whose  own  handwriting  it  has  been  endorsed 
"Dispensations."  During  those  eleven  years  1,377  dispen- 
sations were  granted  to  1,070  different  clergymen.  The 
proportion  between  these  figures  and  the  number  of  livings 
is  interesting,  as  showing  the  need  created  by  the  dearth  of 
ministers,  bewailed  by  so  many  of  the  bishops,  evidently  a 
consequence  of  the  unwillingness  of  a  large  body  of  clergy 
to  take  the  Elizabethan  oaths  of  Supremacy  and  Uni- 
formity. Towards  the  end  of  the  period  covered  by  the 
Register,  the  reason  suggested  would  have  ceased  in  great 
measure  to  hold  good;  but  the  numbers  are  significant. 
The  dates  of  entry  are  not  always  in  exact  chronological 
order;  but,  roughly,  the  numbers  run  as  follows:  dispensa- 
tions granted  during  the  first  year  were  191  in  number, 
then  180,  132,  60,  90,  82,  and  so  on.    Now  it  would  be  pre- 

1  P.R.O.  Dom.  Eliz.,  XVII,  No.  23,  8th  June,  1561. 

2  Old  Royal  Libr.  MS.  18,  D.  ill,  f.  3. 

3  P.R.O.  Dom.  Eliz.,  lxxvi. 


WINCHESTER  415 

cisely  during  the  first  three  years  that  the  largest  number 
of  livings  would  have  become  vacant  by  deprivation,  resig- 
nation owing  to  conscientious  scruples,  and  abandonment 
through  fear.  But  another  point  is  also  made  clear  through 
the  pages  of  this  Register.  No  less  than  95 1  of  those 
entries  of  grants  of  pluralities  were  made  to  chaplains  of 
bishops  or  noblemen.  The  Bishop  of  Sarum  had  12  chap- 
lains, who  were  dispensed  with  to  be  pluralists ;  Lord  Pem- 
broke 23,  while  Bishop  Home  had  5.  Some  60  of  these 
clergy  were  chaplains  to  well-known  Catholic  noblemen, 
and  therefore  without  much  doubt  were  Catholic  priests  who 
were  shielded  by  the  powerful  influence  of  their  patrons ; 
and  relying  on  the  "  pretence  that  they  serve  noblemen  " 
had,  as  Bishop  Home  complained,  "  purposely  withdrawn 
themselves  "  from  his  visitation,  endeavouring  by  this  ruse 
to  escape  the  necessity  of  taking  the  oaths,  or  by  their 
refusal,  exposing  themselves  to  the  risk  of  deprivation. 

On  29th  August,  1 561,  Bishop  Home  wrote  again  to 
Cecil  at  greater  length,  to  inform  him  of  the  progress  of 
his  work.  Reading  between  the  superabundant  lines  of 
pompous  verbiage,  it  seems  that  some  order  had  been  re- 
ceived from  the  Privy  Council  for  the  Justices  of  the  shire 
to  make  enquiries  similar  to  those  pursued  in  the  course  of 
the  episcopal  visitation.  The  Bishop  suggests  an  amalgama- 
tion of  forces,  ecclesiastical  and  civil,  with  the  result  that 
"  it  might  disclose  a  great  part  of  the  estate  of  the  country 
and  strike  such  awe  and  fear  in  the  minds  of  the  gentry 
and  other  the  subjects,  that  infinite  profit  would  grow 
thereby."  The  context  makes  it  clear  that  reference  was 
mainly  to  the  observance  of  the  civil  law ;  but  he  pro- 
ceeded :  "  As  touching  religion,  I  have  found  more  dis- 
orders by  this  inquisition  in  my  [civil]  division,  and  Sir  W. 
Kellaway  in  his,  Mr.  Poynings  in  his,  and  Mr.  Uvedall  in 
his  .  .  .  than  I  could  in  my  visitation  by  the  churchwar- 
dens, such  is  the  fear  of  punishment  by  the  purse  more 
than  of  God's  curse.  But  whatsoever  is  found  and  reformed 
by  us  in  these  divisions,  we  cannot  perceive  that  much  is 
done  elsewhere  in  the  shire,  making  as  it  seemeth  little 


4i6     TASK  OF  THE  ELIZABETHAN  BISHOPS 

sort  thereof.  For  by  means  of  small  correction  done  in 
other  parts,  many  idle  persons  and  evil  disposed  shift  from 
us  into  other  hundreds,  whereof  disorder  increaseth  the 
more,  and  giveth  occasion  to  some  amongst  us  to  murmur 
for  that  they  are  redressed  and  brought  to  order,  and  not 
others."1  Though  the  language  is  somewhat  cryptic,  the 
facts  stand  out  clearly  enough,  indicating  that  Papists 
shifted  their  dwellings  to  avoid  being  brought  to  book,  just 
as  has  already  been  seen  in  the  case  of  other  dioceses.  That 
he  had  to  deal  with  the  persistent  opposition  of  many 
"  evil  disposed  "  appears  from  a  subsequent  letter.  Writing 
again  to  Cecil  on  12th  January,  1 561-2,  the  Bishop  said  : 
"  having  many  ways  endeavoured  and  travailed  to  bring 
and  reduce  the  inhabitants  of  the  city  of  Winchester  to  good 
uniformity  in  religion,  and  namely  to  have  the  cures  there 
served  as  the  Common  Prayer  might  be  frequented,  which 
hath  not  been  done  since  the  Massing  time ;  and  also  that 
good  and  sound  doctrine  might  be  taught  amongst  them, 
which  they  as  yet  do  not  so  well  like  and  allow,  I  could  not 
by  any  means  hitherto  bring  the  same  to  pass."  For  a 
remedy  he  suggests  uniting  some  of  the  city  livings,  "  with- 
out which  I  see  no  way  how  to  have  them  well  served,  but 
that  they  shall  continue  and  be  further  nursled  in  supersti- 
tion and  Popery,  lacking  not  of  some  priests  in  the  Cathe- 
dral Church  to  inculcate  the  same  daily  into  their  heads 
.  .  .  and  the  rather  for  the  said  inhabitants  are  very  stub- 
born, whose  reformation  would  keep  the  greatest  part  of  the 
shire  bent  that  way  .  .  .  some  of  them  have  boasted  and 
avaunted  that  do  what  I  can,  I  shall  not  have  this  my  pur- 
pose [i.e.,  of  uniting  certain  livings] ;  whereby  it  seemeth 
they  have  some  privy  bearing,  that  giveth  them  courage 
thus  to  say.  And  I  do  not  think  the  contrary,  but  that 
sundry  there  are  in  the  shire  which  have  borne  some  great 
countenance  in  the  late  times,  which  hinder  as  much  as 
they  can  the  proceedings  in  religion,  and  to  be  found  not 
to  have  communicated  since  the  Queen's  Majesty's  reign 
began,  or  since  the  Mass-saying,  against  whom  I  think 
1  P.R.O.  Dom.  Eliz.,  xix,  No.  36. 


WINCHESTER  417 

hereafter  I  must  proceed  to  enforcement."1  That  the  Bishop 
was  not  without  justification  for  his  suspicions  that  there 
were  those  in  his  diocese  "  which  hinder  as  much  as  they 
can  the  proceedings  in  religion,"  appears  more  plainly  in 
a  subsequent  letter,  wherein  he  asks  Cecil's  help  to  secure 
a  living  for  a  "common  preacher  of  God's  Word  very  earnest 
and  diligent  in  the  same."  So  little  preferment  was  in  his 
own  hands,  and  so  little  could  he  count  on  the  help  of  any 
of  those  who  held  the  patronage  of  livings,  that  Bishop 
Home  relied  only  on  Cecil  to  get  his  nominee  a  foothold  in 
the  diocese.  "  It  standeth  so  that  there  is  likely  very  shortly 
that  two  benefices  will  be  void  here  of  the  gift  of  the 
Countess  of  Southampton,  which  I  doubt  will  be  bestowed 
by  unseemly  manner  to  men  unworthy,  unless  your  honour's 
letters  effectually  written  to  the  said  Countess  in  the 
bearer's  behalf  may  obtain  one  of  those  benefices  for  this 
bearer." 2  This  communication  and  the  list  of  dispensations 
to  hold  a  plurality  of  benefices  lately  referred  to,  throw 
light  on  one  another  mutually,  for  the  Catholic  Countess  of 
Southampton  was  one  of  those  whose  private  chaplains  were 
so  licensed.  The  Bishop  continued  to  hold  her  in  suspicion, 
for,  in  1564,  he  suggested  to  the  Privy  Council  that  her  son, 
the  young  earl,  "  might  now  in  his  youth  be  so  trained  in 
religion  that  hereafter  ...  he  should  not  hinder  the  same."3 
This  general  survey  of  the  condition  of  religion  prevail- 
ing in  Bishop  Home's  diocese  serves  as  a  useful  preface  to 
the  return  he  was  required  to  make  in  1563.  This  he  did 
on  12th  July  of  that  year.  In  all,  421  churches  and  chapels 
were  enumerated,  being  thus  distributed:  313  in  the  arch- 
deaconry of  Winchester,  and  108  in  that  of  Surrey.  The 
exempt  parishes  were  49  in  number,  bringing  down  the 
total  of  churches  for  which  Bishop  Home  was  responsible 
to  372,  and  being  thus  closely  in  agreement  with  the  total 
of  362,  as  given  in  the  "  Douay  Diaries  "  list.    As  no  details 

1  P.R.O.  Dom.  Eliz.,  xxi,  No.  7;  printed  in  full  in  Dodd's  Church 
History,  ii,  p.  cccxviii. 

a  P.R.O.  Dom.  Eliz.,  xxv,  No.  2,  3rd  October,  1562. 
3  Camden  Miscellany,  vol.  ix,  Bishops'  Letters,  1564,  p.  54. 
E  E 


420    TASK  OF  THE  ELIZABETHAN  BISHOPS 

perilous  Papist  did  speak  it,  although  as  yet  I  can  come  by 
no  proof  thereof;  for  the  party  to  whom  it  was  spoken  did 
tell  it  me,  although  he  were  loth  to  be  the  author  thereof 
for  neighbourhood's  sake."1 

This  attachment  of  the  inhabitants  of  Hampshire  to  the 
Faith  of  their  fathers  received  confirmation  not  very  long 
after  from  another  source.  Some  time  in  1 572  there  was  pre- 
pared for  Lord  Burghley's  information,  and  endorsed  by  him 
"  Hampshire,"  a  list  containing  "  The  names  of  the  noblemen, 
gentlemen,  yeomen  and  chief  franklins  within  the  county  of 
Southampton,  with  note  of  every  of  their  dispositions."  The 
names  are  headed  by  that  of  the  Bishop  and  six  noblemen, 
but  without  any  comment.  Two  of  them,  however,  Lord 
St.  John  and  Lord  Chideock  Paulet,  figured  in  1564  among 
the  Justices  who  were  "  mislikers  or  not  favourers  " ;  and 
the  latter  nobleman  appeared  for  many  years  after  in 
various  returns  of  recusants.2  Then  followed  246  persons 
arranged  according  to  the  Hundreds  where  they  dwelt;  102 
have  no  distinguishing  label :  these  were  people  of  whose 
conformity  Lord  Burghley  could  make  sure;  others  have 
"  pp  "  or  "  p  "  against  their  names.  A  cursory  examination 
of  the  list  establishes  the  fact  that  these  letters  represent 
that  those  opposite  whose  names  they  were  set  were  either 
"  earnest  Papists  "  or  merely  "  Papists."  There  were  47  of 
the  former,  97  of  the  latter.3  It  was  about  this  time  that  a 
casual  remark,  in  a  letter  of  Bishop  Home  to  Bullinger, 
furnished  the  probable  cause  of  the  compilation  of  this 
list,  the  history  of  which  really  belongs  to  another  part  of 
this  subject.  On  10th  January,  1572-3,  he  wrote:  "The 
Church  .  .  .  is  .  .  .  not  without  danger;  not  so  much  from 
the  opposition  of  the  Papists,  who  are  daily  restrained  by 
severe  laws,  as,"  etc.4  That  list,  doubtless,  had  something 
to  do  with  the  incidence  of  the  penal  laws  upon  the  recus- 
ants. That  the  work  of  stamping  out  opposition  to  the 
Reformation  had  not  as  yet  altogether  succeeded  in  Win- 

1  Lansd.  MS.  12,  No.  31. 

2  Cf.,  ex.gr.,  P.R.O.  Dom.  Eliz.,  Lix,  No.  46,  28th  November,  1569. 

3  P.R.O.  Dom.  Eliz.,  xc,  No.  18.  4  1  Zur.,  p.  277,  No.  105. 


WINCHESTER  421 

Chester  diocese  is  proved  from  the  Articles  of  Enquiry 
framed  by  Archbishop  Parker  in  1575  for  use  in  his  metro- 
political  visitation  of  that  diocese.  At  that  late  date  he  asks, 
inter  alia:  "whether  any,  being  once  ordained  priest  .  .  . 
doth  not  still  continue  in  their  calling,  or  frequenteth  and 
resorteth  not  to  the  Common  Prayer.  .  .  .  Item,  whether 
any  of  them  say  or  sing  in  private  conventicles  Mass.  .  .  . 
Item,  whether  any  parsonage  or  vicarage  or  any  other 
spiritual  living  in  this  diocese  be  holden  by  the  name  and 
title  of  any  beyond  the  seas?"1  The  usual  questions  about 
the  destruction  of  altars,  images,  Mass-books,  etc.,  etc.,  of 
course,  recur. 

The  next  transaction  shedding  light  on  the  present 
enquiry  is  the  certificate  of  recusants  required  in  1577  by 
the  Privy  Council.  As  this  entailed  a  valuation  of  their 
lands  and  goods,  it  boded  for  them  further  spoliation.  The 
Bishop  furnished  the  return  with  alacrity,  spurred  on,  it 
may  be  inferred,  by  the  chagrin  he  must  have  experienced 
by  the  defection  of  his  nephew  Adam  Home,  who  had  just 
been  reconciled  to  Rome.2  Hence  there  was  some  justifica- 
tion for  the  bitterness  of  his  comment:  "And  so  most 
heartily  desirous  to  hear  that  your  wisdoms  will  devise 
some  such  remedy  in  these  causes  as  their  most  wilful 
obstinacy  may  be  the  better  restrained  and  corrected, 
which  daily  groweth  more  and  more."3  The  actual  list  was 
commenced  thus :  "  First,  whereas  by  the  same  your 
honourable  letters  it  is  required  that  certificate  shall  be 
made  without  respect  of  person  or  degree,  it  was  thought 
good  only  to  name  the  Earl  of  Southampton,  leaving 
further  to  deal  therein,  for  that  his  Lordship  and  the  value 
of  his  lands  and  goods  is  not  unknown  unto  your  honour- 
able Lordships."  After  this  discreet  challenge  to  the  Coun- 
cil to  "  deal "  with  a  nobleman  too  powerful  for  Home 
himself  to  meddle  with,  the  usual  tabulated  list  follows,  con- 
taining fifty-seven  names,  nearly  all  of  them  of  prominent 

1  Second  Report  of  Rubrics  Cofntnission,  1868,  App.  E,  pp.  415-6. 

2  Douay  Diaries,  p.  128. 

3  P.R.O.  Dom.  Eliz.,  cxvn,  No.  10,  24th  October,  1577. 


4i8     TASK  OF  THE  ELIZABETHAN  BISHOPS 

whatsoever  were  furnished  about  the  108  churches  in  the 
archdeaconry  of  Surrey,  our  comparisons  must  be  based 
solely  on  the  Hampshire  figures.  The  exempt  churches 
were  thus  situated:  41  in  Hampshire,  8  in  Surrey.  Of  the 
313  churches  in  the  archdeaconry  of  Winchester,  233  were 
parish  churches,  while  80  were  chapels  of  ease.  Thirty-two 
churches  were  void,  and  62  of  the  80  chapels  were  unserved.1 
This  state  of  things  gives  point  to  Bishop  Home's  remark, 
made  to  Bullinger,  that  he  was  strenuously  engaged  in 
" teaching,  warning,  and  enforcing  what  was  right,"  "lest  the 
flock  committed  to  our  charge  should,  through  our  fault,  be 
scattered  by  those  inveterate  errors  which  are  still  circu- 
lated by  the  Papists  in  secret."2  In  the  following  year,  when 
the  return  of  Justices  was  asked  for,  specifically  as  re- 
garded their  religious  convictions,  Bishop  Home  was  not 
as  communicative  as  was  his  wont.  But  he  confirmed  the 
fact,  already  established,  that  "  Winchester  is  most  noted 
in  Hampshire  either  for  good  example  or  evil,"  and  that 
"  all  that  bear  authority  there  except  one  or  two  [were] 
addict  to  the  old  superstition  and  earnest  fautors  thereof." 
When  we  consult  the  tabulated  lists,  8  "  mislikers  "  con- 
front us,  as  against  2  "  favourers,"  mentioned  by  the 
Bishop,  and  two  more  added  in  Cecil's  hand.  In  the  county 
of  Hampshire  the  Bishop  mentioned  6  "  mislikers  "  and 
23  "favourers,"  including  himself, his  chancellor,  and  one  or 
two  similar  officials.  In  Surrey  the  proportion  was  more 
balanced,  there  being  in  that  county  8  "  favourers  "  against 
4  "  mislikers." 

Even  amongst  the  magistrates  thus  labelled  as  "favourers," 
there  were  those  who  were  so  outwardly  only,  for  at  a  later 
date,  when  the  Rising  in  the  North  was  sifting  men's  in- 
clinations, the  Bishop  wrote  to  Cecil :  "  I  would  have  no 
other  gentlemen  than  those  I  have  named  in  the  commis- 
sion, for  avoiding  partiality  and  bearing  with  friends,  neigh- 
bours and  kinsfolks;  of  which  faults,  even  of  the  best,  Pro- 
testants are  not  void.    They  will  do  in  Hampshire  as  in 

1  Harl.  MS.  595,  No.  31,  f.  258. 

2  1  Zur.,  p.  135,  No.  61,  13th  December,  1563. 


WINCHESTER  419 

Northumberland.  They  will  detect  unto  me  some  secretly, 
yet  will  not  in  anywise  be  seen  in  the  matter,  but  leave  it 
to  myself  to  pick  out  so  well  as  I  can."1  Though  he  did 
not  seem  to  appreciate  the  way  in  which  these  Justices 
shifted  unpleasant  work  from  their  own  shoulders  on  to  his, 
he  was,  unlike  some  of  his  episcopal  brethren,  ready  to  bear 
the  burthen  and  take  the  possible  risks,  and  the  letter  just 
cited  shows  that  his  hands  were  not  empty,  "  The  excom- 
municates I  will  deal  withal  after  the  form  of  the  statute. 
But  for  that,  experience  heretofore  hath  taught  me,  how 
little  hope  there  is  to  do  any  good  that  way,  unless  the 
Courts  were  reformed,  which  I  look  not  for";  so  that  even 
when  making  his  suggestions,  given  above,  about  the  con- 
stitution of  his  local  bench,  he  was  not  confident  as  to  the 
result.  Hence  he  cast  around  for  a  more  effective  remedy, 
and,  perhaps  in  the  spirit  of  his  age,  could  discover  it  in  no 
other  form  than  in  coercion.  Thus,  still  harping  on  the 
need  of  providing  a  commission  of  the  peace  more  attached 
to  the  throne  and  the  parliamentary  religion,  he  wrote  again 
to  Cecil,  on  21st  January,  1569-70,  and  thus  expressed  his 
views :  "  Sir,  what  troubles  and  charges  overmuch  forbear- 
ing of  the  Papists  hath  wrought,  is  manifest;  and  some 
wise  men  feareth  that  the  self  same  cause  will  bring  forth 
hereafter  a  more  grievous  effect.  The  Papists  stamp  and 
stare  at  the  rebels,  and  crieth  out  at  their  lewd  enterprise ; 
but,  certainly,  this  is  that  which  grieveth  them,  that  they 
dealt  the  matter  so  foolishly  that  it  could  take  no  better 
effect.  For,  most  assuredly,  they  looked  and  were  in  good 
hope  in  all  this  country  (I  mean  the  Papists),  whatsoever 
they  said,  that  the  matter  would  have  gone  otherwise. 
And  that  may  appear  by  such  talk  as  this  is :  \I  trust  ere 
it  be  long,  the  Queen's  Majesty  herself  shall  not  choose  but  to 
alter  this  religion,  and  that  with  her  own  hands'  This  and 
such  like  talk  immediately  before  the  commotion  began  was 
among  them,  as  I  am  informed,  and  that  among  those  that 
be  of  good  place.  I  hope  to  get  some  proof  of  this;  but  I 
am  persuaded  before  God  in  conscience,  that  one  who  is  a 
1  Lansd.  MS.  12,  No.  27,  2nd  January,  1569-70. 


422     TASK  OF  THE  ELIZABETHAN  BISHOPS 

and  well-known  Catholics:  as  Cotton,  Shelley,  Vachell 
Wells,  Beconsawe.  Banister,  Udall,  Tichborne,  Pounds, 
White,  and  Warneford.1  This  list  dealt  solely  with  Hamp- 
shire ;  another  one  was  prepared  for  Surrey  by  Sir  William 
More  of  Loseley  and  Sir  Thomas  Browne.  They  set  about 
their  task  very  thoroughly,  "  albeit  all  those  persons  whose 
names  the  said  Lord  Bishop  hath  certified  us  as  recusants 
are  utterly  unknown  unto  us,  for  that  they  inhabit  in  the 
farthest  part  of  the  shire  from  us,  and  that  we  have  not 
before  this  time  been  made  privy  who  have  been  presented 
as  recusants."2  Notwithstanding  these  drawbacks  and  dis- 
advantages, however,  they  managed  to  furnish  one  of  the 
most  interesting  of  these  documents  which  have  survived, 
from  the  fulness  and  picturesqueness  of  the  details  they 
had  collected  about  the  twenty-four  incriminated  individ- 
uals who  there  figure.  Andrew  Silvertop,  gent,  of  Camber- 
well,  and  his  wife,  had  been  presented  for  not  attending 
church  or  communicating,  and  about  a  year  previously  had 
been  indicted  "  for  Massing  at  Westminster  .  .  .  and  suf- 
fered the  penalty  of  the  law."  This  example  may  do  duty 
for  several  similar  entries.  We  learn  that  John  Strang- 
man,  of  Bermondsey,  had  as  his  wife  a  lady,  "  late  the  wife 
of  Mr.  Felton,  executed  for  the  Pope's  Bull."  The  list  con- 
cludes with  the  following  item:  "Doctor  Heath,  priest, 
doth  not  come  to  the  church.  Other  lands  and  goods  to 
maintain  himself  withal  than  Chabham  Park  we  know  not." 
Small  wonder  if  this  "  priest"  was  a  recusant,  for  he  was  no 
other  than  the  Archbishop  of  York,  deprived  eighteen 
years  before!  The  list  of  Papists  drawn  up  in  1579,  for  the 
purpose  of  assessing  them  with  a  view  to  a  military  levy, 
gives  the  names  of  twenty-six  Catholics  of  considerable 
wealth,  and  includes  Archbishop  Heath,  but  without  esti- 
mating his  resources.3  These  references  bring  us  to  the  end 
of  Bishop  Home's  episcopate,  but  not  of  the  proofs  that 

1  P.R.O.  Dom.  Eliz.,  cxvn,  No.  10.  i. 

2  Ibid.,  cxvn,  No.  14,  Sir  W.  More,  etc.,  to  Council,  25th  October, 
I577- 

3  Cf.  ibid.)  cxlii,  No.  2,3- 


WINCHESTER  423 

might  be  adduced  of  the  continued  attachment  of  the 
people  of  Hampshire  to  the  Catholic  Faith.  John  Watson, 
who  succeeded  Bishop  Home  in  the  diocese  of  Winchester, 
although,  as  his  letters  show,  an  undoubted  opponent  of  the 
Papists  and  in  favour  of  employing  extreme  measures 
against  them,  was  nevertheless  thought  by  many  to  be  slack 
in  his  duty  as  regarded  them.  The  truth  is  that  circum- 
stances were  too  strong  for  him.  Strype  is  quoted  for  the 
statement  that  in  the  Hampshire  portion  of  this  diocese 
Papists  were  in  large  numbers,  "  and  so  multiplied  by  re- 
volting from  religion,  that  the  Bishop  of  Winchester,  in 
whose  diocese  it  lies,  near  about  this  year,  1580,  sent  intel- 
ligence thereof  to  the  Lord  Treasurer  and  other  Lords  of 
the  Council,  in  order  to  repress  the  boldness  and  wayward- 
ness of  the  recusants  in  that  county.1  Even  last  Easter  (he 
said)  upon  some  secret  pact  purposely  wrought,  500  per- 
sons have  refused  to  communicate  more  than  did  before 
[refuse  to  do  it]."2  A  return  made  in  1582  states  the  num- 
ber of  recusants  in  Hampshire  as  132, — more  than  in  any 
county  except  York  and  Lancashire.3  In  1584,  on  the  death 
of  Bishop  Watson,  "  the  condition  of  this  diocese,"  as  Strype 
records,  "was  at  present  but  ill  as  to  its  religion.  For  by  rea- 
son of  the  vacation  of  three  or  four  months,  upon  the  death 
of  Home,  the  predecessor  of  Watson,  and  this  Bishop's  re- 
missness, the  non-residence  of  the  ministers,  and  the  dili- 
gence of  seminary  priests,  and  want  of  an  ecclesiastical 
commission,  Papistry  had  got  much  ground  in  those  parts 
in  Hampshire."'  There  can  be  no  question  that,  in  this 
diocese,  the  Catholics  had,  for  some  time,  been  growing  in 
boldness;  for  during  1583  the  Justices  of  Hampshire  wrote 
to  the  Privy  Council  complaining,  amongst  other  disturb- 
ing incidents,  that  some  had  "  boldly  affirmed  that  it  is 
necessary  to  have  Mass,  and  they  hope  to  hear  it;  and  that 

1  Cf.  for  this  "petition"  Egerlon  MS.  1693,  f.  117.    It  is  really  later 
than  1580,  being  from  the  pen  of  Bishop  Cooper. 

2  I  Zur.,  p.  322,  note. 

3  Diet.  Nat.  Biog.,  xii,  p.  1 50.  Notice  of  Cooper,  Bishop  of  Winchester. 

4  Life  0/  Whitgift,  i,  p.  261. 


424    TASK  OF  THE  ELIZABETHAN  BISHOPS 

they  had  rather  hear  bear-baiting  than  divine  service."1 
Severe  measures  had  to  be  resorted  to.  Where  fines  could 
be  inflicted,  as  upon  the  rich,  they  were  extracted  without 
pity;  as  in  the  case,  for  example,  of  Mr.  George  Cotton,  of 
Warblington,  who  actually  paid  £260  a  year  for  over 
twenty  years  for  refusing  to  go  to  church.2  In  the  case  of 
people  too  poor  to  be  able  to  stand  such  systematic  mulct- 
ings,  there  was  always  prison  to  fall  back  upon,  and  as  the 
records  show,  they  began  to  be  filled  with  recusants;  and 
it  was  even  stated  that  not  a  few  recusants  were  publicly 
whipped  through  the  streets  of  Winchester  for  the  offence 
of  refusing  to  worship  after  a  fashion  that  their  consciences 
did  not  approve.3  In  1583  a  list  of  at  least  230  names  of 
recusants  in  Hampshire  alone  was  returned.4  The  State 
papers  for  the  remainder  of  the  reign  all  furnish  exactly  the 
same  details,  almost  to  weariness  of  repetition,  leaving  it 
beyond  cavil  that  throughout  Elizabeth's  reign  Hampshire 
was  Catholic  to  the  core. 

In  the  distribution  of  reforming  bishops,  made  in  1559, 
Chichester  diocese  was  particularly  unfortunate  in  the  in- 
dividual allotted  to  it,  for  William  Barlow  came  with  a 
tarnished  reputation  from  St.  David's  and  Bath  and  Wells, 
the  Sees  he  had  held  under  Henry  VIII  and  Edward  VI. 
The  first  instance  that  remains  to  us  of  his  zeal  for  the  ex- 
tirpation of  Romanism  is  in  a  letter,  written  probably  to 
Cecil,  wherein  he  states  that  "  Thomas  Stapleton  and 
Edward  Goddeshalfe,  prebendaries  of  Chichester,  being  evil 
affected  towards  Christian  religion,  are  now  in  Louvain; 
and  as  it  is  bruited,  were  the  last  summer  at  Tridentine 
Council.5   This  Stapleton  is  a  young  man,  and  was  Fellow 

1  Cotton  MS.  Titus  B.  in,  No.  29,  f.  75. 

2  Pells  Receipt  Books,  No.  51.  Cf.  Abbot  Gasquet,  Hampshire 
Recusants,  pp.  24-36,  and  passim. 

3  Douay  Diaries,  p.  357. 

*  P.R.O.  Dom.  Eliz.,  clx,  No.  26.  Many  of  the  entries  are  in  general 
terms,  as  "  Eliz.  Beconshaw,  widow,  and  all  her  family." 

s  This  gives  the  clue  to  the  date  of  the  letter.  In  the  Calendar  to 
P.R.O.  Dom.  Eliz.  it  is  suggested  that  the  date  is  February,  1560. 
The  Council  of  Trent,  after  an  interval  of  some  years,  was  re-convoked 


CHICHESTER  425 

of  New  College  in  Oxford,  traded  up  in  Papistry  from  his 
childhood,  who,  misliking  the  proceedings  of  the  realm, 
conveyed  himself  over  the  seas  without  licence,  under  the 
wings  of  Count  Feria.  Howbeit,  since,  he  obtained  pardon 
with  a  licence  to  continue  there  three  years,  whereof  the 
term  is  almost  expired. 

"  Edward  Goddeshalfe  is  an  obstinate  Papist,  and  refus- 
ing to  subscribe  to  the  Supremacy,  he  procured  a  licence 
to  absent  himself  for  three  years,  which  shall  be  determined 
the  1 2th  of  March  next.  His  pretence  was  for  printing  of 
Eusebius,  very  corruptly  translated  in  sundry  places  by 
Bishop  Christopherson,  and  like  to  be  worse  set  forth  by 
him  to  the  hurt  of  religion.  If  I  be  not  stayed  by  renewing 
of  his  licence,  I  intend  for  just  causes  to  deprive  him  of  his 
prebend,  being  one  of  the  best  of  my  gift,  which  shall  be 
at  your  disposition."  This  letter  has  been  given  in  extenso, 
because,  beyond  giving  an  insight  into  Bishop  Barlow's 
disposition,  it  also  suggests  the  means  resorted  to,  no 
doubt,  by  others  as  well  as  the  two  prebendaries  there 
named,  to  avoid  hurting  their  consciences  by  taking  the 
oaths  imposed  by  Parliament  in  1559,  and  endeavouring 
at  the  same  time  to  hold  on  to  their  preferments  in  the 
hope  that  a  short  period  would  see  a  reversion  to  the  old 
order  once  more.  The  means  to  prove  this  are  not  avail- 
able, it  is  true,  but  the  probabilities  remain. 

Like  his  brother  bishops,  Barlow  made  a  certificate  for 
the  information  of  the  Privy  Council,  about  the  state  of  his 
diocese  as  it  was  in  1 563.  The  document  is  an  unsatisfactory 
one,  being  incomplete  as  regards  many  of  the  answers  ex- 
pected from  him ;  for  example,  the  numbers  of  households 
are  not  given,  nor  are  the  names  of  the  incumbents.  The 
churches  and  chapels  named  amount  to  287,  not  including 
two  exempt  peculiars,  thus  being  39  in  excess  of  the  num- 
ber mentioned  in  the  "  Douay  Diaries "  list.  Of  these 
livings,  5,  though  void,  were  served  by  curates,  while  4, 
though  in  the  possession  of  incumbents,  were  as  if  void,  for 

in  November,  1560;  hence  this  letter  at  the  earliest  must  be  February, 
1 561 -2.   (Cf.  P.R.O.  Dom.  Eliz.,  XI,  No.  24.) 


426     TASK  OF  THE  ELIZABETHAN  BISHOPS 

the  incumbents  were  non-resident  and  did  not  trouble  to 
have  their  duties  performed  by  substitutes ;  while  45  cures 
were  wholly  unprovided.  Thus  it  would  really  be  correct  to 
amalgamate  the  last  two  groups  for  purposes  of  comparison; 
in  other  words,  nearly  a  fifth  of  the  livings  were  vacant.1 

Next  year,  although  assuring  the  Privy  Council  that  his 
diocese  was  "  free  from  all  violent  attempts  either  to  afflict 
the  godly  or  to  disturb  the  stablished  good  orders  of  this 
realm,"  Barlow  was  not  altogether  without  suspicion  as  to 
the  value  of  this  conformity,  for  he  expressed  his  "  doubt 
of  secret  practices  which  perhaps  might  break  out  into  open 
violence,  were  it  not  for  fear  of  your  Lordships'  vigilant 
authority."  This  confession  of  discontent  is  further  corro- 
borated by  the  following  words :  "  Concerning  the  matter,  I 
have  used  conference  with  Mr.  Dean  of  Sarum  [William 
Bradbridge]  and  Mr.  Augustine  Bradbridge,  my  Chancellor, 
both  of  them  born  in  the  shire  and  thoroughly  acquainted 
with  the  state  of  the  same.  I  refrained  to  communicate 
so  frankly  with  others  because  I  doubted  of  their  secret- 
ness, that  retinue  and  alliance  being  so  great  in  these 
parts."  2  The  sum  of  his  information  is  that  10  justices  were 
"  favourers,"  while  1 2  were  " mislikers."  He  went  beyond  the 
requirements  of  the  Privy  Council,  by  letting  them  under- 
stand that  the  county  possessed  10  other  gentlemen,  not 
Justices,  who  were  "favourers,"  as  against  17  who  were  not. 
Grouping  Justices  and  others  together,  the  result  shows  20 
on  whom  the  Bishop  could  rely,  overweighted  by  39  oppon- 
ents of  religious  change,  upon  whom  he  bestowed  such 
epithets  to  ticket  their  dispositions,  as :  "  very  superstitious : 
extremely  perverse:  stout  scorner  of  godliness:  wickedly 
obstinate:  common  harbourer  of  obstinates:  frowardly 
superstitious:  and,  notorious  obstinate  adversary." 

Bishop  Barlow  died  on  13th  August,  1568,  and  the  See 
of  Chichester  was  vacant  for  almost  two  years.  William 
Overton,  then  Treasurer  of  the  diocese,  wrote  to  Cecil  to 
announce  Barlow's  death,  and  took  the  opportunity  of  sug- 

1  Cf.  Harl.  MS.  594,  No.  12,  f.  109,  19th  July,  1563. 

2  Camden  Miscellany,  ix,  Bishops'  Letters,  1564,  pp.  8-1 1. 


CHICHESTER  427 

gesting  care  in  the  choice  of  a  successor;  for,  as  he  assured 
Cecil,  everywhere  in  their  midst,  almost  every  corner  was 
full  of  Papists  and  Popery :  "  Undique  enim  apud  nos 
Papistarum  et  Papismatis  plena  fere  sunt  omnia."  ?  It  was 
not  without  cause,  therefore,  that  in  the  course  of  1 569,  dur- 
ing the  vacancy,  Archbishop  Parker  made  a  metropolitical 
visitation  of  the  diocese  by  a  commissary,  of  which  a  minute 
statistical  account  exists."  The  results  there  gathered  to- 
gether throw  much  light  on  the  condition  of  religion  at 
that  time  in  Sussex.  The  first  grave  disorder  that  reveals 
itself  is  the  fact  that  five  of  the  prebendaries  were  laymen, 
one  of  them,  moreover,  apparently  residing  in  Italy.  A  list 
is  given  of  the  people  who  did  not  go  to  church  or  receive 
communion:  Viscount  Montagu  "  and  his  family  "  head  the 
list,  and  eighteen  names,  mostly  of  well-known  Catholic 
families  as  Pole,  Shelley,  Gage  of  Firle,  follow.  One  of  the 
names  is  of  peculiar  interest:  that  of"  Anne  Lyne,  wife  of 
Mr.  Lyne,  gentleman."  It  is  probable  that  this  is  the  lady 
who  was  hanged  at  Tyburn,  27th  February,  1600- 1,  for  the 
high  crime  and  misdemeanour  of  harbouring  priests,  and 
so  ended  a  long  life  of  constant  adherence  to  the  ancient 
Faith  by  dying  a  martyr's  death. 

The  report  mentions  that  "  there  are  some  beneficed  men 
there  which  did  preach  in  Queen  Mary's  days  and  now  do 
not  nor  will  not,  and  yet  keep  their  livings."    These  were: 

Graye  (Withyham),   Rob.   Parkhurst  (Washington), 

Wm.  Foster  (Billinghurst),  Sir  Davie  Spencer  (Clapham), 

Nich.   Hicket  (Pulborough),  Story  (Findon).    Then 

three  priests,  Stephen  Hopkins,  Davy  Michell  and  Thomas 
Cotesmore,  "  are  fostered  in  gentlemen's  houses,  and  run 
between  Sussex  and  Hampshire,  and  are  hinderers  of  true 
religion,  and  do  not  minister."  Racton  parish  still  remained 
very  Catholic,  and  "  Mr.  Arthur  Gunter  is  the  cause  there- 
of, which  ruleth  the  whole  parish  though  he  refuse  to  come 
unto  church."  This  gentleman  had  associated  with  him  in 
this  misdemeanour  several  more,  who  also  did  not  "  receive 

1  P.R.O.  Dom.  Eliz.,  xlvii,  No.  40,  14th  August,  1568. 

2  Cf.  ibid.,  LX,  No.  71. 


428     TASK  OF  THE  ELIZABETHAN  BISHOPS 

the  holy  Communion  at  Easter,  but  at  that  time  get  them 
out  of  the  country  until  that  feast  be  past,  and  return  not 
again  until  then."  Another  manifestation  of  this  unwilling- 
ness to  conform  is  shown  by  the  statement  that  "  many 
gentlemen  receive  the  Communion  at  home  in  their  chapels 
at  Easter  times ;  and  they  choose  them  out  a  priest  for  the 
purpose  to  minister  unto  them  there,  fetched  a  good  way 
off  .  .  .  and  therefore  there  is  some  suspicion  of  false  pack- 
ing among  them  in  the  ministering  of  the  Communion 
otherwise  than  is  in  the  Book  established."  The  witness 
cites  definite  instances  in  support  of  his  complaint.  The 
parish  of  Racton  appeared  to  bear  a  sinister  reputation  in 
the  Visitor's  estimation,  and  not  without  cause,  seeing  it 
provided  support  for  some  of  the  fugitives  beyond  seas, 
notably  for  "  Mr.  Stapleton,  who  being  excommunicated 
by  the  Bishop,  did  fly  and  avoid  the  realm."  Within  that 
parish,  too,  there  were  "  many  books  that  were  made  be- 
yond the  seas."  Add  to  this  that  "  there  be  certain  priests 
that  have  and  do  keep  Dr.  Sander's  book  entitled  the 
Rock  of  the  Church,  wherein  he  doth  not  account  the 
bishops  that  now  be,  to  be  any  bishops,"  Sir  David  Spencer 
being  one  of  those  thus  incriminated  and  also  as  being  an 
intermediary  between  the  fugutives  and  their  friends  and 
supporters  at  home.  The  following  official  evidence  clearly 
proves  that  Catholic  practices  still  lingered:  hopes  for  a 
Catholic  revival  were  not  yet  extinguished  after  more  than 
ten  years  of  revolt  from  Rome.  At  Arundel  "  certain  altars 
do  stand  yet  still";  and  there  were  "yet  in  the  diocese 
in  many  places  thereof  images  hidden  up,  and  other 
popish  ornaments  ready  to  set  up  the  Mass  again  within 
24  hours'  warning,  as  in  the  town  of  Battle,"  here  described 
as  "very  blind  and  superstitious,"  and  elsewhere  called 
"  the  popish  town  in  all  Sussex,"  whose  inhabitants  were 
not  afraid  openly  to  express  their  real  sentiments,  and 
"  when  a  preacher  doth  come  and  speak  anything  against 
the  Pope's  doctrine,  they  will  not  abide,  but  get  them  out 
of  the  church."  "  In  some  places  the  rood  lofts  do  yet 
stand  though  they  were  commanded  to  be  taken  down; 


CHICHESTER  429 

and  the  timber  of  them  that  be  taken  down  lieth  still  in 
many  churches  ready  to  be  set  up  again."  "  In  some  places 
because  the  rood  was  taken  away,  they  painted  there  in 
that  place  a  cross  with  chalk ;  and  because  that  was  washed 
away,  with  painting ;  and  the  number  of  crosses  standing 
at  graves  in  the  churchyard  taken  also  away;  since,  they 
have  made  crosses  upon  the  church  walls,  within  and  with- 
out." It  was  a  grim  and  determined  struggle  that  was  going 
on  between  Papist  and  Puritan  in  this  corner  of  England; 
but  it  furnished  its  humorous  episodes,  as,  for  instance,  that 
vouched  for  by  the  Visitor;  that  in  certain  churches  the 
Papists  had  "  set  crosses  upon  their  stalls  whom  they 
favour  not,  and  upon  my  farmer's  stall  they  have  chalked 
up  a  gibbet."  Complaint  was  made  of  the  majority  of  the 
"  ministers" — surely  priests, — for  not  fulfilling  their  obliga- 
tions as  fixed  by  Parliament,  and  it  is  stated  that  "  they  use 
in  many  places  ringing  between  Morning  Prayer  and  the 
Litany," — possibly  a  survival  of  the  Sacring  Bell ;  as  also 
"  all  the  night  following  All  Saints'  Day,  as  before  in  time 
of  blind  ignorance  and  superstition  taught  by  the  Pope's 
clergy."  These  relics  of  Popery  survived  through  the  help 
of  "schoolmasters  which  teach  without  licence  and  authority 
so  to  do,  and  be  not  of  a  sound  and  good  religion."  Their 
efforts  were  aided  by  a  certain  "  Father  Moses  sometime  a 
friar  in  Chichester,  and  he  runneth  about  from  one  gentle- 
man's house  to  another  with  news  and  letters,  being  much 
suspected  in  religion  and  bearing  a  popish  Latin  Primer 
about  him  with  Dirge  and  the  Litany,  praying  to  Saints, 
and  in  certain  houses  he  maintained  the  popish  Purgatory 
and  the  praying  to  dead  Saints."  Of  the  clergy  it  is  stated 
that  "in  many  places  they  keep  yet  still  their  chalices 
looking  for  to  have  Mass  again  .  .  .  hoping  for  a  day  for 
the  use  of  the  same;  and  some  parishes  feign  that  their 
chalices  were  stolen  away,  and  therefore  they  ministered  in 
glasses  and  profane  goblets  "  rather  than  change  the  form 
of  their  chalices  into  that  of  Communion  cups,  as  they 
had  been  enjoined  to  do.  As  regards  the  laity,  "  there  be 
many  in  the  diocese  of  Chichester  which  bring  to  the 


430    TASK  OF  THE  ELIZABETHAN  BISHOPS 

church  with  them  the  old  popish  Latin  Primers,  and  use 
to  pray  upon  them  all  the  time  when  the  Lessons  be  a- 
reading  and  in  the  time  of  the  Litany  .  .  .  some  old  folks 
and  women  there  used  to  have  beads  in  the  churches,  and 
those  I  took  away  from  them ;  but  they  have  some  yet  at 
home  in  their  houses."  The  Visitor  further  called  the  Arch- 
bishop's attention  to  the  fact  that  "  in  the  city  of  Chichester 
few  of  the  aldermen  be  of  a  good  religion,  but  are  vehem- 
ently suspected  to  favour  the  Pope's  doctrine,  and  yet  they 
be  Justices  of  Peace,"  notwithstanding  the  Privy  Council's 
inquisition  five  years  previously!  In  the  face  of  all  this 
evidence,  the  Visitor's  verdict  eleven  years  after  the  acces- 
sion of  Elizabeth  about  the  Catholicity  of  the  diocese  of 
Chichester  must  be  accepted,  though  the  words  in  which 
he  expresses  it  cannot  be  endorsed:  "Except  it  be  about 
Lewes  and  a  little  in  Chichester,  the  whole  diocese  of 
Chichester  is  very  blind  and  superstitious." 

Richard  Curteis,  who  had  been  appointed  Dean  of 
Chichester  in  1566,  was  selected  to  succeed  Barlow.  His 
zeal,  though  unbounded,  was  not  tempered  by  tact  or  dis- 
cretion ;  hence  he  fell  foul  of  the  principal  laity,  who  were 
strong  enough  to  oppose  him,  carry  their  complaints  to 
Court,  and  finally  secure  a  severe  reprimand  for  the  Bishop 
for  his  over-officiousness.  The  story,  briefly,  is  this.  Bishop 
Curteis,  as  he  informed  Secretary  Walsingham,1  "finding 
that  they  that  be  backward  in  religion  in  this  country  grow 
worse  and  worse  upon  report  of  Don  John  d'Austria's  com- 
ing into  the  Low  Countries  .  .  .  sent  for  such  as  are  most 
suspected."  His  list  contains  thirty-two  names,  including 
four  parsons,  Marian  priests,  "  some  of  them  that  pretend 
well  and  yet  be  not  sound  in  religion."  He  desired  that 
those  of  them  who  were  Justices  should  be  put  out  of  the 
commission,  or  else  that  the  oaths  should  be  administered 
to  them,  "  for  it  is  commonly  and  credibly  thought  that 
some  of  them  never  took  the  oath  although  it  be  otherwise 
returned."  He  had  already  required  them  to  answer  six 
Articles,  as  to  whether  they  had  been  to  church  since 
1  P.R.O.  Dom.  Eliz.,  CXI,  No.  45,  24th  March,  1576-7. 


CHICHESTER  431 

1st  January,  1575-6,  or  communicated,  or  attended  sermons, 
or  sent  letters  or  money  to  the  fugitives  beyond  seas,  or 
had  any  of  the  books  published  by  Harding,  Stapleton, 
Rastall,  Sander,  or  Marshall,  or  harboured  those  guilty  of 
such  misdemeanours.1  This  produced  an  indignant  com- 
plaint to  the  Privy  Council  from  some  of  the  gentlemen 
incriminated,  followed  by  further  letters  on  both  sides,  end- 
ing with  the  formulation  of  serious  charges  against  the 
Bishop.2  A  commission  of  enquiry  was  appointed,  with  the 
result  that  the  Bishop  was  ordered  to  make  satisfaction  to 
his  opponents  and  to  "  reconcile  himself  with  such  gentle- 
men and  clergymen  as  he  was  at  variance  withal  " ;  to  ask 
pardon  for  his  "disorderly  manner  of  proceeding  in  his 
diocese  sundry  ways,"  and  that  "  some  convenient  way  may 
be  thought  on  by  the  Lords  of  the  Privy  Council  as  well 
for  the  satisfaction  of  the  country  as  also  that  the  Bishop 
discharging  his  duty  may  not  be  had  in  contempt." 3  That 
he  was  "  had  in  contempt "  by  some  of  his  flock  cannot  be 
gainsaid;  they  pursued  him  with  their  dislike,  and  had  the 
satisfaction  of  paying  off  old  scores  through  his  brother 
Edmund,  vicar  of  Cuckfield,  who  had  been  denounced  to 
Walsingham  as  "void  of  all  learning  and  discretion,  a  scoffer 
at  singing  of  psalms,  a  seeker  to  witches,  a  drunkard,  infected 
with  a  loathsome  disease."  4  Thereupon  Walsingham  wrote 
to  Bishop  Curteis,  desiring  him  to  deprive  his  brother,  unfit 
"  not  only  for  his  insufficiency  of  knowledge  .  .  .  but  also 
for  his  unworthiness  to  have  any  such  pastoral  charge  at 
all  in  the  Church,  his  ignorance  being  so  great  and  his  life 
so  vile  as  for  modesty's  sake  I  spare  to  name  some  par- 
ticularities delivered  to  me  for  proof  of  the  same." 5  The 
Bishop,  not  unnaturally,  demurred,6  and  finally  the  Bishop 

1  Cf.,  too,  P.R.O.  Dom.  Eliz.,  CXll,  No.  9,  6th  April,  1577. 

2  Cf.  P.R.O.  Dom.  Eliz.,  CXll,  Nos.  13,  13  i,  20,  29,  291,  30,  31,  32, 
33,  34,  35,  36,  37,  38,  39,  4°,  41,  42,  43,  44- 

3  Ibid.,  cxn,  No.  49  j  see  also  No.  50,  the  Bishop's  reply  to  the  fore- 
going orders. 

4  Ibid.,  cxxx,  No.  2,  6th  March,  1578-9. 

5  Ibid.,  cxxx,  No.  1,  6th  March,  1578-9. 

G  Cf.  ibid.,  CXXX,  No.  22,  30th  March,  1579. 


432     TASK  OF  THE  ELIZABETHAN  BISHOPS 

of  London  was  directed  to  proceed  to  the  deprivation  of 
the  delinquent.1 

This  incident  is  not  of  importance  in  itself;  but  it  is  use- 
ful as  affording  an  instance  of  the  want  of  a  sense  of  even 
common  justice  in  the  Elizabethan  episcopate,  in  their  frantic 
efforts  to  extirpate  Popery  almost  at  the  sacrifice  of  every 
other  consideration.  It  was  apparently  this  failing  in  Bishop 
Curteis  that  aroused  such  bitter  animosity  against  him, 
animosity  that  went  the  length  of  accusing  him  at  that 
very  time,  that  "the  sixteenth  day  of  April  last  past  being 
the  general  sessions  day,  at  the  house  of  Mr.  John  Sherwyn, 
citizen  and  alderman  of  the  city  of  Chichester  [he]  was  so 
far  overcome  with  drink  as  was  too  unseemly  to  behold, 
and  especially  in  a  man  of  his  calling."  For  the  honour  of 
that  "  calling  "  he  found  six  gentlemen  willing  to  deny  so 
disgraceful  an  allegation,  under  their  hands  and  seals.  They 
had  all  been  present  at  the  dinner  and  testified  that  "the 
said  Bishop  behaved  himself  and  talked  then  and  there 
both  wisely,  soberly,  gravely,  and  learnedly;  and  that  he 
neither  spake  nor  did  anything  whereby  any  well-meaning 
man  could  conjecture  any  such  thing  in  him."2  These 
bickerings  gave  place  to  more  serious  business;  for  in  the 
autumn  came  the  order  from  the  Privy  Council  to  furnish 
a  list  of  recusants  to  attend  service  with  a  valuation  of  their 
property  and  possessions.  The  bishop's  list  contains  twenty- 
two  names  of  the  wealthier  members  of  his  flock,  and  most 
of  those  had  found  a  place  in  his  previous  lists  which  had 
brought  so  much  trouble  upon  him.3  Some  two  years  later, 
in  the  general  list  of  recusants  throughout  England,  drawn 
up  on  the  same  plan,  Chichester  diocese  furnishes  ten 
names. 

The  little  diocese  of  Rochester  is  illustrious  in  the  annals 
of  the  English  Church,  through  the  gentle  virtues  and  un- 
flinching constancy  of  its  martyr-Bishop,  Blessed  John 
Fisher,  Cardinal  of  the  Holy  Roman  Church.    Later,  in  his 

1  Athenae  Cantabrig.,  i,  p.  457. 

2  P.R.O.  Dom.  Eliz.,  cxiv,  No.  8,  2nd  June,  1577. 
8  Ibid.,  cxvn,  No.  15,  26th  October,  1577. 


ROCHESTER  433 

place,  had  sat  Poynet  and  Scory  of  evil  fame;  and,  later 
still,  when  Elizabeth  came  to  the  throne,  Rochester  was  one 
of  the  Sees  without  an  occupant,  through  the  death  of 
Maurice  Griffin,  which  took  place  but  three  days  after  that 
of  Queen  Mary. 

The  diocese  remained  vacant  throughout  1559,  but  early 
in  the  following  year  Edmund  Ghest  was  consecrated  its 
Bishop.  Singularly  little  evidence  survives  of  his  dealings 
with  those  of  his  flock  who  persisted  in  believing  and 
worshipping  as  their  fathers  had  done ;  hence  it  may  be 
surmised  that  his  sentiments  towards  them  were  not  on 
the  whole  unfriendly,  for  he,  together  with  Cheyney  of 
Gloucester,  appears  to  have  departed  less  definitely  and 
less  violently  from  the  ancient  teaching  than  the  rest  of  his 
episcopal  brethren ;  and,  in  consequence,  fell  under  a  certain 
amount  of  suspicion.  In  1563  Bishop  Ghest,  like  the  rest 
of  the  bishops,  furnished  the  Privy  Council  with  certain 
details  about  his  diocese.  From  these  we  learn  that  there 
were  but  91  parish  churches  within  its  confines,  though  the 
"  Douay  Diaries  "  list  credits  it  with  98.  Of  these  9 1  parishes, 
65  had  resident  incumbents,  and  11  others,  whose  incumb- 
ents were  non-resident,  were  looked  after  by  curates.  Eight 
others  were  practically  vacant,  for  though  they  were  in  the 
possession  of  incumbents,  these  were  non-resident,  and  had 
no  curates  as  proxies,  while  7  more  were  actually  vacant 
and  unserved.  Thus  76  had  their  spiritual  wants  provided 
for,  while  15,  or,  roughly,  one-fifth  of  the  livings,  were  en- 
tirely neglected.1  About  two  years  later,  the  number  of 
vacant  livings  in  Rochester  diocese  was  returned  as  being 
four ;  two  had  been  void  for  six  years,  another  for  twelve,  while 
the  remaining  one  had  been  unserved  for  twenty-two  years.'2 

Passing  over  some  fourteen  years,  during  which  time 
Ghest  had  been  promoted  to  Salisbury,  Edmund  Freake 
had  replaced  him  for  a  while  and  then  gone  to  Norwich, 
and  John  Piers  ruled  in  their  place,  we  reach  the  year  1577, 
the  autumn  of  which  brought  with  it  the  Privy  Council's 

1  Cf.  Lansd.  MS.  6,  No.  57,  12th  July,  1563. 

2  P.R.O.  Dom.  Eliz.  Add.,  XII,  No.  108. 

F  F 


434    TASK  OF  THE  ELIZABETHAN  BISHOPS 

letters  informing  him  that  it  was  "  the  Queen's  Majesty's 
pleasure  that  you  shall  certify  unto  us  with  all  the  diligence 
you  may,  as  well  the  names  of  all  persons  within  your 
diocese  that  refuse  to  come  to  the  church  to  hear  divine 
service,  as  also  the  value  of  their  lands  and  goods  as  you 
think  they  are  in  deed  and  not  as  they  be  valued  in  the 
Subsidy  Book."1  Bishop  Piers  forwarded  the  names  of 
seven  people  of  wealth,  including  William  Roper  of  Eltham, 
Esq.,  the  husband  of  the  great  Sir  Thomas  More's  favourite 
daughter  Margaret,  who  "neither  receiveth  the  Communion, 
neither  cometh  to  the  church  " ;  another  had  not  communi- 
cated for  seven  years,  but  as  a  set-off  against  this,  it  was 
mentioned  to  his  credit  that  he  once  attended  a  sermon 
preached  by  the  Bishop,  while  another  had  never  communi- 
cated since  the  Queen's  accession,  though  he  was  accustomed 
to  attend  service.2  Two  years  later,  or  thereabouts,  in  a 
general  list  of  recusants,  Rochester  furnished  but  four  names ; 
two,  including  Roper's,  being  ruled  out  as  "  dead,"  while  one 
other  is  new,  being  that  of  the  son  of  the  other  departed 
recusant. 3 

London  naturally  always  takes,  and  has  ever  taken,  the 
lead  in  all  questions,  not  only  of  politics,  but  also  of  religion. 
Hence,  in  Elizabeth's  reign,  the  chief  object  of  the  states- 
men who  tried  to  guide  her  policy  was  to  secure  the 
adhesion  of  the  capital  to  "  her  Majesty's  godly  proceedings 
in  matters  of  religion  " ;  and  this  once  effected,  they  might 
feel  tolerably  assured  of  the  submission  of  the  rest  of  the 
country,  since,  as  Strype  puts  it,  the  first  chief  care  was  "  for 
the  reforming  of  the  city  of  London,  that  commonly  gave 
the  example  to  all  the  rest  of  the  realm."  *  It  was  even 
more  forcibly  expressed  by  Archbishop  Parker  in  1565, 
when  his  mind  was  exercised  about  the  Puritan  revolt  then 
threatening.  He  urged  upon  Cecil  the  need  for  "reformation 
in  all  London;  and  you  know  there  is  the  most  disorder, 

1  P.R.O.  Dom.  Eliz.,  cxvi,  No.  15,  15th  October,  1577. 

2  Ibid.,  cxvn,  No.  2,  20th  October,  1577. 

3  Ibid.,  No.  CXLii,  No.  33. 

4  Life  of  Grindai,  p.  36. 


Emery  Walker  photo 


I  Lambeth  Palac 


EDMUND  GRINDAL 

SUCCESSIVELY  BISHOP  OF  LONDON 
AND  ARCHBISHOP  OF  YORK  AND  CANTERBURY 


Reproduced  by  kind pe 


of  the  Archbishop  oj  Canterbury 


LONDON  435 

and  then  is  the  matter  almost  won  through  the  realm." l 
An  estimate  made  shortly  after  the  massacre  of  St.  Bar- 
tholomew results  in  the  statement  that  "  it  is  terrible  to 
consider  that  not  every  fortieth  person  in  England  is  a  good 
and  devout  Gospeller  (unless  it  be  in  London)."  This  again 
shows  that  London  was  acknowledged  by  others  as  taking 
the  lead  in  reform,  and  yet  not  too  vigorously,  from  a 
reformer's  point  of  view.2  Thus  it  was  a  matter  of  great 
moment  to  place  over  the  diocese  of  London  one  who 
should  promote  the  cause  of  the  Reformation  most  rapidly, 
most  effectually,  and  at  the  same  time  most  discreetly. 
The  man  likely  to  fulfil  these  requirements  most  nearly  was 
thought  to  be  Edmund  Grindal,  formerly  chaplain  to 
Bishop  Ridley,  who  had  fled  to  the  Continent  to  escape  his 
master's  fate.  Immediately  on  Elizabeth's  accession  he  had 
returned;  and  so  highly  was  he  thought  of  amongst  the 
reforming  party  that  he  was  at  once  employed  on  the  re- 
vision of  Edward's  Book  of  Common  Prayer,  prior  to  its 
submission  to  Parliament  to  be  attached  as  a  schedule  to 
the  Act  of  Uniformity.  His  selection  for  this  task  was  that, 
as  Strype  says,  having  as  Ridley's  chaplain  been  "well 
acquainted  with  the  reasons  and  methods  used  under  King 
Edward  in  the  composing  the  Common  Prayers,  wherein 
[Ridley]  with  Archbishop  Cranmer  had  the  chief  hand,"  * 
he  could  render  the  body  of  revisers  important  help  and 
information.  He  had  also  been  selected  as  one  of  the 
champions  on  the  Protestant  side  in  the  Westminster  Con- 
ference. Shortly  after  the  Parliament  ended,  Bonner  being 
deprived  of  the  See  of  London,  Grindal  was  appointed  on 
23rd  June,  1559,  to  replace  him.4  Hence,  on  19th  July,  1559, 
in  the  Queen's  Commission  to  him,  Parker,  and  others,  for 
carrying  into  execution  the  Acts  of  Uniformity  and 
Supremacy,  he  was  styled  "  nominated  Bishop  of  London."5 
Shortly  before  his  selection  for  the  See  of  London,  he 

1  Lansd.  MS.  8,  No.  I,  3rd  March,  1564-5. 

2  Cf.  Ibid.  109,  No.  31.  3  Life  of  Grindal,  p.  33. 

4  Machyn's  Diary,  p.  101. 

5  P.R.O.  Dom.  Eliz,  v,  No.  18. 


436     TASK  OF  THE  ELIZABETHAN  BISHOPS 

sufficiently  expressed  his  own  views  as  to  the  religious 
situation  in  a  letter  to  Conrad  Hubert:  "Now  at  last  .  .  . 
there  has  been  published  a  proclamation  to  banish  the 
Pope  and  his  jurisdiction  altogether,  and  to  restore  religion 
to  that  form  which  we  had  in  the  time  of  Edward  the  Sixth. 
If  any  bishops  or  other  beneficed  persons  shall  decline  to 
take  the  oath  of  abjuration  of  the  authority  of  the  Bishop 
of  Rome,  they  are  to  be  deprived  of  every  ecclesiastical 
function,  and  deposed.  No  one,  after  the  feast  of  St.  John 
the  Baptist  next  ensuing,  may  celebrate  Mass  without 
subjecting  himself  to  a  most  heavy  penalty.  It  is  therefore 
commonly  supposed  that  almost  all  the  bishops,  and  also 
many  other  beneficed  persons,  will  renounce  their  bishoprics 
and  their  functions,  as  being  ashamed,  after  so  much 
tyranny  and  cruelty  exercised  under  the  banners  of  the 
Pope,  and  the  obedience  so  lately  sworn  to  him,  to  be  again 
brought  to  a  recantation,  and  convicted  of  manifest  perjury. 
We  are  labouring  under  a  great  dearth  of  godly  ministers: 
for  many,  who  have  fallen  off  in  this  persecution,  are  now 
become  Papists  in  heart;  and  those  who  had  been  here- 
tofore, so  to  speak,  moderate  Papists,  are  now  the  most 
obstinate."  l  This  extract  has  been  given  as  showing  the 
situation  he  had  so  soon  to  face,  and  the  spirit  with  which 
he  approached  it.  Shortly  after,  when  he  knew  that  he  was 
to  be  Bishop  of  London,  he  again  informed  the  same  cor- 
respondent of  the  progress  of  events.  "  The  state  of  our 
Church,"  he  wrote,  "is  pretty  much  the  same  as  when  I  last 
wrote  to  you,  except  only  that  what  had  heretofore  been 
settled  by  proclamations  and  laws  with  respect  to  the 
reformation  of  the  churches,  is  now  daily  being  carried  into 
effect,  the  popish  bishops  are  almost  all  of  them  deprived ; 
and  if  any  yet  remain,  they  will  be  deprived  in  a  few  days 
for  refusing  to  renounce  their  obedience  to  the  Pope.  They 
are,  however,  treated  with  sufficient  lenity,  not  to  say  too 
much  so,  for  they  are  allowed  to  retire  into  private  life,  and 
devour,  as  Master  Bucer  used  to  say,  the  spoils  of  the 

1  uZur.,  p.  19,  No.  8,  23rd  May,  1559. 


LONDON  437 

Church.  .  .  .  Many  of  our  friends,  who  were  in  exile  in 
Germany,  are  now  marked  out  for  bishops."  l 

In  the  interval  that  elapsed  between  Grindal's  appoint- 
ment to  London  and  his  consecration,  he  was  employed  in 
the  North,  being  one  of  the  commissioners  appointed  for 
the  visitation  of  that  Province.2  On  21st  December,  1559, 
he  was  consecrated  by  Archbishop  Parker,  a  few  days  after 
that  prelate  had  himself  been  consecrated.  His  acts  as 
Bishop  of  London  have  been  chronicled  with  some  pretence 
at  minuteness  by  Strype;  but,  as  usual  with  that  prolix 
though  undiscriminating  writer,  without  co-ordination  of 
parts,  or  in  all  cases  a  true  adjustment  or  even  perception 
of  the  relation  of  various  events  to  one  another.  Much,  too, 
that  is  known  to  have  taken  place  finds  no  mention  what- 
ever in  his  pages :  but  the  reader  is  here  referred  in  general 
to  his  works. 

London  was,  from  its  being  the  centre  of  government,  the 
residence  of  the  Court  and  of  foreign  ambassadors,  as  also 
in  many  other  respects,  in  a  unique  and  peculiar  position  as 
one  of  the  most  important  dioceses  of  the  realm.  Hence, 
the  history  of  the  religious  struggles  as  seen  in  this  diocese 
naturally  partakes  somewhat  of  the  nature  of  a  general  his- 
tory of  the  whole  country,  and  the  work  of  its  Bishop  was, 
therefore,  specially  difficult  and  exacting.  Indeed,  Grindal 
spoke  feelingly  out  of  the  abundance  of  his  own  experience, 
when,  some  years  later,  he  wrote  to  Archbishop  Parker 
about  Edwin  Sandys,  who  had  followed  him  in  the  bishop- 
ric of  London:  "  if  my  successor  at  London  have  ministered 
any  occasion  of  his  own  disquiet,  1  am  sorry.  But  surely 
he,  the  Bishop  of  London,  is  always  to  be  pitied."3  The 
nature  of  the  man  and  his  religious  views  need  to  be  known, 
if  we  are  rightly  to  understand  his  attitude.  Something  we 
have  learnt  already  from  his  correspondence  with  Conrad 
Hubert;  more  may  be  gathered  from  a  letter  written  by 
him  to  Bullinger  on   29th  August,  1567,  in  which,  telling 

1  II  Zur.,  p.  23,  No.  10,  14th  July,  1559. 

2  P.R.O.  Dom.  Eliz.,  x,  passim. 

3  Remains  of  Abp.  Grindal,  p.  347,  No.  73,  9th  December,  1573. 


438     TASK  OF  THE  ELIZABETHAN  BISHOPS 

him  about  the  religious  changes  going  on  in  Scotland,  he 
also  thus  gave  him  the  heads  of  various  Acts  "  by  which  the 
true  religion  of  Christ  is  established,  and  the  impious 
superstition  of  the  Papists  abolished  .  .  .  not  only  are  all 
the  impious  traditions  and  ceremonies  of  the  Papists  taken 
away,  but  also  [the  papal]  tyranny  ...  is  altogether  abol- 
ished ;  and  it  is  provided  that  all  persons  shall  in  the  future 
acknowledge  him  to  be  the  very  antichrist  and  son  of  per- 
dition, of  whom  Paul  speaks.  The  Mass  is  abolished,  as 
being  an  accursed  abomination  and  a  diabolical  profanation 
of  the  Lord's  Supper."  '  Being  thus  in  possession  of  Grin- 
dal's  sentiments  on  these  crucial  questions,  it  becomes  easier 
to  understand  his  treatment  of  Catholic  practices,  and  his 
determination  to  extirpate  anything  savouring  of  the  old 
Faith.  He  would  therefore  have  found  himself  thoroughly 
in  harmony  with  the  opposition  offered  to  a  Rogation  pro- 
cession in  May,  1559,  as  recounted  by  II  Schifanoya.2  In- 
deed, next  year,  when,  as  Bishop,  he  was  in  a  position  to 
assert  his  authority  with  reference  to  such  matters,  he  issued 
distinct  injunctions, — "  the  Rogation  time  drawing  on,  when 
many  superstitious  processions  were  wont  to  be  used  in 
London  and  other  places,"3 — to  discard  any  religious  idea  in 
connection  with  them,  and  to  turn  the  old  processions  into 
a  mere  "  beating  of  bounds."  "  For  avoiding  of  superstitious 
behaviour,"  so  runs  the  instruction  to  the  Archdeacon  of 
Essex,  "  and  for  uniformity  to  be  had  in  the  Rogation 
week,  now  at  hand ;  these  shall  be  to  require  you  to  give 
notice  and  commandment  within  your  archdeaconry,  that 
the  ministers  make  it  not  a  procession,  but  a  perambulation ; 
and  also  that  they  suffer  no  banners,  nor  other  like  monu- 
ments of  superstition  to  be  carried  abroad."4  But  Strype, 
in  recounting  this  prohibition,  adds:  "yet  I  find  in  many 
places  of  the  realm  this  year  gang-week,  as  they  call  it,  was 
observed.    And  in  divers  places,  of  Bucks  and  Cornwall, 

1  1  Zur.,  p.  199,  No.  81. 

1  Cf.  Venetian  Papers,  No.  71,  10th  May,  1559. 

3  Strype,  Grindal,  p.  55. 

*  Remains,  No.  9,  p.  240. 


LONDON  439 

especially,  the  people  went  in  procession  with  banners,  and 
had  good  cheer  after  the  old  custom."  1 

Grindal  had  early  deplored  to  Conrad  Hubert  the  dearth 
of  godly  ministers;2  no  sooner  was  he  in  a  position  to 
remedy  that  need,  than  he  set  about  the  task  in  a  somewhat 
wholesale  fashion.  During  one  year  of  his  episcopate,  that 
is,  from  27th  March,  1560,  to  14th  March,  1560-1,  no  fewer 
than  27  ordinations  were  held  in  London,  mostly  by  Grin- 
dal himself,  at  which  85  candidates  received  deacon's  Orders, 
and  104  were  promoted  to  the  priesthood, certain  individuals, 
in  defiance  of  the  canons,  receiving  both  grades  on  the  same 
day.  At  one  ordination  (25th  April,  1560)  no  less  than  30 
priests  and  29  deacons  were  admitted;  and  by  the  end  of 
July  61  priests  and  50  deacons  had  been  promoted.  In  this 
year  about  140-50  men  were  admitted  to  Orders  to  supply 
the  vacancies  caused  by  deprivation  on  refusal  to  take  the 
oaths  of  Supremacy  and  Uniformity,  or  by  the  abandon- 
ment of  livings  for  conscience'  sake  by  those  who  would 
not  face  the  ordeal  of  deprivation.  It  is  important  to  note, 
moreover,  that  only  21  out  of  all  these  candidates  were 
scholars  or  graduates  or  fellows  of  either  University; 
while  many,  though  advanced  in  years,  "  being  grave  and 
sober  persons,"  as  Strype  puts  it,  "  though  no  scholars,  but 
perhaps  tradesmen  before,  were  thought  convenient  to  be 
admitted  into  Orders,  to  supply  the  present  necessity  of  the 
Church." 3  This  wholesale  pitchforking  of  unlearned  men 
into  the  ministry  naturally  proved  distasteful  to  many;  and 
Archbishop  Parker,  who  admitted  that  he  had  not  been  sin- 
less in  this  respect  himself,  had  to  restrain  not  only  the 
Bishop  of  London's  ardour,  but  also  that  of  the  other 
bishops.4  The  difficulties  and  inconveniences  created  in  this 
way  were  recognised  by  Reformer  and  Catholic  alike.  James 
Calfhill  admitted  that  "  the  inferior  sort "  of  their  ministry 
were  "such  as  came  from  the  shop,  from  the  forge,  from  the 
wherry,  from  the  loom,"  and  regretted  the  necessity  that 

1  Grindal,  p.  56.  2  11  Zur.,  p.  19,  No.  8. 

3  Life  of  Grindal,  p.  59. 

4  Cf.  Parker  Corresp.,  p.  120,  No.  86,  15th  August,  1560. 


440    TASK  OF  THE  ELIZABETHAN  BISHOPS 

compelled  them  to  employ  such  "  unskilful "  men.1  John 
Rastall,  in  his  answer  to  Bishop  Jewel's  Challenge,  gibed  at 
the  Reformers  as  being  "  constrained  to  suffer  cobblers, 
weavers,  tinkers,  tanners,  cardmakers,  tapsters,  fiddlers, 
gaolers,  &c,  ...  to  climb  up  into  pulpits,  and  to  keep  the 
place  of  priests." 2  The  need  of  recourse  to  such  a  desperate 
measure  could  have  been  forced  on  Grindal  and  his  brother 
bishops  by  one  reason  only :  a  sudden  departure  from  their 
livings  of  an  abnormally  large  number  of  the  clergy.  This 
fact  it  has  been  the  fashion  hitherto  to  overlook,  but  the 
time  has  come  to  put  aside  the  ill-informed  statements  of 
Camden  and  his  copyists  and  to  face  the  truth  as  it  is  dis- 
closed by  contemporary  documentary  evidence. 

As  Archbishop  Parker  had  had  to  curb  Grindal's  activity 
in  one  branch  of  his  episcopal  duties,  so,  also,  he  had  to  in 
another;  for,  on  27th  May,  1560,  he  was  constrained  to  for- 
bid Grindal  and  the  rest  of  his  suffragans  to  visit  their 
dioceses  as  many  of  them  had  proposed  to  do  during  that 
year.3  The  prohibition  was  based  on  the  poverty  of  the 
clergy,  who  could  not  afford  the  customary  fees,  and  they 
had  already  been  sufficiently  mulcted  the  previous  year 
during  the  great  visitation  of  both  Provinces. 

In  1 56 1,  however,  Grindal  began  the  visitation  of  his 
diocese,  and  on  the  very  day  he  opened  it,  a  letter  he  wrote 
to  Cecil  shows  the  temper  with  which  he  undertook  it.  "  I 
send  you,"  he  said,  "  the  confession  of  Coxe,  alias  Devon, 
the  priest,  for  Mass  matters,  taken  this  present  day,  after 
receipt  of  your  letters.  Surely  for  this  magic  and  conjura- 
tion your  honours  of  the  Council  must  appoint  some  extra- 
ordinary punishment  for  example.  My  Lord  Chief  Justice 
saith  the  temporal  law  will  not  meddle  with  them  :  our 
ecclesiastical  punishment  is  too  slender   for  so   grievous 

1  Works,  p.  51. 

2  P.  152;  quoted  by  Heylin  in  his  Hist,  of  the  Reform.,  ed.  1670, 
p.  175,  who  ruefully  admits  that  though  Rastall  "were  a  Papist  .  .  . 
yet  ...  he  hath  faithfully  delivered  too  many  sad  truths  in  these 
particulars." 

3  Cf.  Parker  Corresp.,  p.  115,  No.  80. 


LONDON  441 

offences."1  Certainly,  it  may  be  taken  for  granted  that 
should  he  find  any  such  practices  in  the  course  of  his  visit- 
ation, he  would  act  with  great  severity  towards  those  thus 
detected.2  Strype,  as  usual,  gives  a  confused  account  of  the 
happenings,  and  from  it,  it  might  be  gathered  that  Sebastian 
Westcote  alone  got  into  trouble  "for  refusing  the  Com- 

1  P.R.O.  Dom.  Eliz.,  xvi,  No.  49,  17th  April,  1561. 

2  Ibid.  Add.,  xxvm,  No.  58,  enclosure  v  (7th  February,  1584),  is 
a  Book  of  Miscellanies,  found  upon  Lancelot,  brother  of  John  Boast, 
the  priest.  This  book  is  an  instance  of  the  greedy  faith  of  the  English 
Catholics  in  prophecies.  It  seems  to  have  been  an  early  specimen,  as 
it  fixes  1563  for  its  date  of  fulfilment.  But  there  seems  to  be  some 
coincidence  in  a  possible  allusion  to  Don  John  of  Austria,  the  brood 
of  Philip's  blood  who  should  reduce  the  Turk. 

The  book  begins : 

"  But  sorrow  and  plague  for  their  offences 

Battle  and  famine  and  all  pestilences 

As  a  desolate  land  brought  it  shall  be,"  etc. 
Here  is  a  word  of  warning : 

"  England  take  this  monition 

Be  wise,  change  thy  condition 

Doubt  not,  but  think  it  sure 

This  storm  thou  shalt  endure. 

With  heart  contrite  confess  thee 

And  to  heavenward  address  thee." 
Lamentations  over  England  in  rhymed  verse,  and  prophecies  of  its 
downfall,  may  be  met  with.    Thus  : 

"If  thou  be  wise  O  Germany,  Frenchmen,  English  flee, 
And  suffer  not  the  Venice  land  to  join  in  league  with  thee. 
Behold ! — for  out  of  Philip's  blood  a  worthy  brood  shall  rise 
Who  shall  redeem  the  world's  misdeeds  with  warlike  enterprise. 
And  the  proud  Turk  he  shall  constrain  the  true  Faith  to  embrace 
And  thee  deprive  of  princely  post,  and  put  thee  out  of  place. 
When  five  three  hundred  years  are  gone  since  Christ  our  Lord  was 

born, 
And  six  times  ten  with  three  by  course  to  us  are  worn. 
All  this  the  ruler  of  the  skies,  who  sitteth  in  Heaven  so  high, 
Bade  me  to  tell  unto  the  world,  as  stars  had  told  to  me." 

It  contains  also  a  letter  on  the  birth  of  Antichrist,  and  fourteen 
lines  of  English  verse,  prophecying  the  time  when  : 

"  The  Mass  shall  last  for  ever  and  aye." 


442     TASK  OF  THE  ELIZABETHAN  BISHOPS 

munion,  and  upon  suspicion  of  adhering  to  popish  princi- 
ples." 1  Every  effort  was  made  to  induce  him  to  conform, 
but  in  vain ;  and  finally  he  suffered  deprivation  in  1 563? 
He  was  Master  of  the  Choir  at  St.  Paul's;  hence  his  influ- 
ence amongst  the  choristers  had  to  be  counteracted  or  re- 
moved; he  remained  in  London,  doubtless  under  the  pro- 
tection of  Lord  Dudley,  and  in  1577  was  returned  as  living 
under  the  shadow  of  his  old  home  in  "  St.  Gregory's  by 
Paul's,  and  is  still  called  Master  of  the  Children  of  Paul's 
Church,  being  valued  at  £100  in  goods."3  The  only  other 
clergyman  deprived  at  this  time,  according  to  Strype,  was 
Dr.  Philip  Baker,  rector  of  St.  Andrew's,  Wardrobe,  as  well 
as  being  Provost  of  King's  College,  Cambridge.  As  a 
matter  of  fact,  many  more  lost  their  preferments  then  or 
later,  as  a  careful  study  of  Rev.  Geo.  Hennessy's  edition 
(1898)  of  Newcourt's  Novum  Repertorium  Ecclesiasticum 
Parochiale  Londitiense  reveals.4  Moreover,  many  clergy  who 
received  their  preferments  in  Mary's  reign  appear  to  have 
been  superseded  or  succeeded  after  no  cause  of  vacancy 
assigned,  during  1560-3.  Unless  proof  can  be  adduced  to 
show  that  they  held  livings  elsewhere  subsequent  to  those 
dates,  it  is  not  stretching  argument  beyond  what  the 
premisses  will  allow  to  claim  them  as  popish  priests  who 
abandoned  their  livings,  or  at  the  best,  who  resigned  them 
to  preserve  the  freedom  of  their  consciences.  Others  again 
were  simply  ejected  to  make  room  for  Edwardine  clergy 
deprived  during  Mary's  reign.5     Reverting  once  more  to 

1  Grindal,  pp.  88  sqq. 

2  Cf.  Ibid.,  pp.  113^^.,  and  Remains,  p.  261,  No.  23,  to  Lord  Robert 
Dudley,  August,  1563. 

8  P.R.O.  Dom.  Eliz.,  cxvm,  No.  73. 

4  E.g.,  Thos.  Byam,  Henry  Wootton,  William  Massenger,  John 
Morren,  Richard  Marshall,  Arthur  Cole,  Thomas  Reniger,  Hugh 
Griffith,  Oliver  Stoning,  Nicholas  Palmer,  Henry  Symonds,  Thomas 
Harvey,  Francis  Mallett,  George  Leades,  William  Est,  John  Dale, 
Lawrence  Field,  William  Musmere,  Robert  Jones,  George  Barton, 
John  Thornton,  Thomas  Wood,  Thomas  Buckmaster,  Oliver  Lingard. 

5  Instances  of  such  cases  are  John  Dale,  George  Strowger,  Robert 
Gooday,  William  Wright,  Robert  Rogers,  Matthew  Myers,  Thomas 


LONDON  443 

Grindal's  letter  to  Cecil,  of  17th  April,  1 561,1  it  becomes 
evident  that  already,  notwithstanding  the  severity  of  the 
enactments  against  saying  or  hearing  Mass,  the  Papists 
in  London  braved  the  very  real  dangers  surrounding  them, 
and  high  and  low  alike  faced  the  risks  rather  than  abandon 
the  Faith  and  worship  of  their  fathers. 

In  the  summer  of  1563  the  Privy  Council  demanded  of 
Grindal  a  statement  about  the  statistics  of  his  diocese. 
Strype  2  gives  the  text  of  the  Council's  letter  and  a  portion 
of  the  Bishop's  answer,  but  just  that  section  from  which 
most  might  have  been  learnt  he  omitted  on  the  convenient 
plea  that  it  was  too  long  to  be  inserted  and  might  be  con- 
sulted in  the  episcopal  Register! 3  The  Register  document 
is,  of  course,  a  copy  of  the  original  which  was  forwarded  to 
the  Council  on  25th  July,  1563,  which  may  serve  our  pur- 
pose here.4  The  "  Douay  Diaries  "  list  credits  the  diocese 
of  London  with  623  churches.  The  Bishop  of  London  enu- 
merates a  grand  total  of  641  churches,  of  which  47  were 
"exempts"  or  "peculiars,"  leaving  594  within  his  own  juris- 
diction. These,  about  which  alone,  naturally,  does  he  fur- 
nish any  particulars,  fall  into  two  groups:  91  within,  503 
outside,  London.  In  London  10  parishes  were  vacant,  2  of 
them  from  the  tenuity  of  the  living,  while  3  other  churches, 
though  not  returned  as  void,  nevertheless  have  no  name  of 
an  incumbent  attached  to  them.  In  the  country  98  churches 
are  named  as  vacant,  19  of  them  through  the  poverty  of 
the  living ;  1 3  livings,  though  vacant,  were  served  by  curates, 
or  had  only  curates;  while  6,  if  provided  with  incumbents, 
do  not  disclose  their  names  to  us.  The  main  point  to  notice, 
however,  is  that  out  of  594  churches,  108,  i.e.,  over  18 
per  cent.,  or  nearly  one-fifth  of  the  parishes  were  vacant  and 
unserved,  and  returned  as  such.  It  should  be  noted  that 
such  a  state  of  things  was  confessed  to  even  after  the  fre- 

Wells,  Robert  Peerson,  Thomas  Parker,  Adam  Richardson,  Richard 
Taylour,  Anthony  Hewetson,  John  Kellet,  John  Peerse,  etc. 

1  P.R.O.  Dom.  Eliz.,  xvi,  No.  49. 

2  Grindal,  pp.  101-4.  3  Ibid.,  p.  104. 
*  Harl.  MS.  595,  No.  24,  f.  60. 


444    TASK  OF  THE  ELIZABETHAN  BISHOPS 

quent  and  large  ordinations  already  mentioned,  besides  the 
others  of  a  later  date  before  the  time  of  this  return.  What 
the  situation  must  have  been  like,  therefore,  during  the 
years  1560  and  1561  may  be  left  to  the  imagination.  It 
cannot  be  gainsaid,  however,  on  the  strength  of  such  evid- 
ence as  these  figures  afford,  that  in  the  earlier  days  of 
Grindal's  episcopate,  many  more  than  one  out  of  every  five 
parishes  had  either  to  go  unserved  entirely,  or  could  have 
been  attended  to  only  occasionally  by  neighbouring  clergy. 

In  1564  Bishop  Grindal  was  called  upon  to  furnish  an- 
other official  return ;  this  time  about  the  reliability  of  the 
Justices  of  Peace,  from  the  religious  standpoint.  Naturally, 
under  the  very  eyes  of  the  Privy  Council,  want  of  con- 
formity was  less  likely  to  be  met  with  in  London  than  else- 
where. Indeed,  Grindal  pointed  this  out:  "The  state  and 
government  of  the  city  of  London  is  always  subject  unto 
the  eyes  of  your  honours,  and  therefore  I  have  not  thought 
it  greatly  necessary  to  make  any  report  at  this  time  of  the 
governors  thereof,  being  well  enough  known."  There  were, 
however,  in  Middlesex,  Hertfordshire,  and  Essex,  exactly 
fifty  favourers  of  the  new  order,  while  twenty-six  were  re- 
turned as  indifferent,  or  uncertain,  or  actually  "hinderers;" 
while  one  gentleman,  "  one  Birkenhead,  clerk  of  the  peace  in 
the  said  County  [Herts]  a  notorious  adversary  to  religion 
.  .  .  and  a  great  afHicter  of  the  godly  "  was  indicated  as  a 
fit  subject  for  dismissal.1 

Grindal  held  a  peculiar  position,  for  not  only  was  he  a 
bishop,  but,  from  the  fact  that  his  jurisdiction  extended 
over  the  centre  of  government,  he  was  much  involved  in  the 
efforts  made  by  Elizabeth's  executive  to  enforce  compliance 
with  the  laws  enacted  against  Popery.  Bishop  Grindal's 
methods  of  carrying  out  the  Council's  wishes  in  this  respect 
will  naturally  throw  some  light  on  the  opposition  that  con- 
tinued to  exist  and  to  be  offered  to  the  attempts  to  Pro- 
testantise the  bulk  of  the  people.  In  the  first  place,  those 
who  then  formed  what  are  now  styled  the  "  professional 
classes,"  and  represented,  of  course,  the  trained  and  edu- 
1  Camden  Miscellany,  vol.  ix;  Bishops'  Letters,  1564,  pp.  59-63. 


LONDON  445 

cated  intellects  of  the  laity,  that  is,  the  medical  and  legal 
professions,  remained,  mostly,  true  to  the  Faith  of  their 
fathers.  Thus,  in  1 576  a  memorandum  was  drawn  up,  show- 
ing that  the  College  of  Physicians  had  hitherto  resisted  any 
interference  from  without,  and  hence  had  enjoyed  immunity 
from  the  religious  inquisitions  that  had  purged,  to  some 
extent  at  least,  the  Universities.  Thus  it  had  come  about 
that  the  Papists  in  that  learned  profession  had  remained 
more  or  less  undisturbed.  As  the  "  recital "  complained, 
Papists,  as  Caius,  Sinnings,  and  Astlowe,  "  have  continually 
occupied  the  chief  rooms,"  i.e.,  held  the  principal  offices ; 
"that  men  expelled  their  Universities  for  religion,"  not  being 
forced  to  take  oaths  against  their  conscience  on  admission 
to  the  College  of  Physicians,  "  by  this  means  have  from 
time  to  time  been  .  .  .  advanced  to  their  credit";  that  the 
members  made  the  College  a  close  corporation,  and  "  that 
either  they  do  wholly  repel,  or  not  without  much  impor- 
tunity admit  any  whom  they  think  to  be  well  affected  to- 
wards the  true  religion  now  received;  that  such  as  have 
gone  beyond  the  seas  to  take  the  degree  of  a  Doctor,  be- 
cause they  would  avoid  the  oath  of  the  Supremacy  (minis- 
tered according  to  the  statute  in  our  Universities),  have 
shortly  upon  their  return  been  admitted  without  any  oath. 
.  .  .  That  such  as  have  been  imprisoned  for  religion  .  .  . 
have  kept  themselves  in  office  .  .  . ;  that  some  of  the  electors 
who  have  fled  for  religion  out  of  the  realm  have  been  kept 
in  their  offices  .  .  .  until  they  died  [Dr.  Clement  at  Louvain 
is  instanced],  etc."  The  names  of  the  members  of  the 
College  appended  to  this  paper,  twenty  in  number,  show 
that  twelve  at  least,  probably  more,  were  Papists.  The 
numbers  would  have  been  greater  earlier  in  the  reign.1 
Some  entries  in  the  Acts  of  the  Privy  Council  give  point  to 
the  above  remarks.  On  22nd  May,  1575,  a  letter  was  des- 
patched to  the  Lieutenant  of  the  Tower  "  to  appoint  some 
trusty  and  honest  person  to  attend  upon  Drs.  Good  and 
Atleslow,  prisoners  in  the  Tower,  being  fallen  into  some 
sickness";  and  on  the  following  10th  June,  that  official  was 
1  Cf.  Lansd.  MS.  21,  No.  60. 


446     TASK  OF  THE  ELIZABETHAN  BISHOPS 

further  instructed  "  to  permit  Sir  Henry  Lee  to  have  access 
to  Dr.  Atselow,  prisoner  under  his  charge,  for  counsel  in 
physic." x  William  Herle,  too,  the  spy  and  informer,  wrote 
to  Cecil  on  19th  March,  1 571-2,  accusing  a  certain  James 
Chillester  of  coining,  etc.  Amongst  other  items  of  his  sup- 
posed misdemeanours  appears:  "  He  hath  been  a  means  for 
the  delivery  of  one  Dr.  Edriche,  a  physician,  out  of  the 
Marshalsea  upon  his  bond  and  another's,  who  are  of  no 
value,  which  Edriche  was  there  for  Popery  and  Mass- 
mongering  about  Oxford,  and  is  one  of  so  great  malice  to- 
wards the  Queen's  proceedings  and  against  this  present 
state  as  none  can  be  more;  but  Chillester  wisheth he  might 
deliver  all  the  Papists  out  of  prison  by  such  colourable 
means." 2  Dr.  George  Etheridge,  thus  referred  to,  lived  till 
1588.  He  had  been  in  trouble  since  early  in  the  reign. 
The  Council  thus  dealt  with  him:  "St.  James's.  23  Nov. 
1564.  A  Letter  to  the  Sheriff  of  Oxfordshire  and  Henry 
Norris  Esq.,  to  cause  one  George  Etheridge  of  Thame  in 
Oxfordshire,  physician,  to  be  sought  for  and  apprehended, 
and  sent  to  the  commissioners  for  causes  ecclesiastical, 
and  to  send  all  such  books  as  they  shall  find  worthy  the 
knowledge  of  the  said  commissioners — to  answer  sundry 
notorious  disobediences  in  causes  of  religion." 3  He  was  a 
schoolmaster  as  well  as  a  medical  man,  and  one  of  his 
pupils  was  the  distinguished  William  Giffard,  afterwards 
Archbishop  of  Rheims.4 

The  situation  as  regards  the  followers  of  the  Law  was 
very  similar.  On  10th  March,  1565-6,  John  Hales  wrote  to 
Cecil:5  "...  I  hear  that  Mr.  Caryll  the  attorney  of  the 
Duchy  is  sick  to  death,  a  man  whose  life,  for  his  learning, 
if  his  religion  were  agreeing,  were  to  be  redeemed  with 


1  Acts  0/  the  Privy  Council,  stib  anno,  pp.  390,  396. 

2  Lansd.  MS.  13,  No.  61.    For  an  insight  into  Herle's  methods,  cf. 
Cotton  MS.  Caligula  C.  Ill,  passim. 

3  Ibid.  982,  f.  125. 

4  Wood,  Athenae,  I,  p.  191  ;  Gillow,  11,  p.  181. 

5  Lansd.  MS.  9,  No.  8.    For  an  account  of  Hales,  cf.  Strype's  Life 
of  Sir  Thos.  Smith,  p.  92 ;  Diet.  Nat.  Biogr.,  xxiv,  p.  29. 


LONDON  447 

thousands.  .  .  .  If  now  it  hath  pleased  God  to  appoint  the 
time  for  him,  it  is  to  be  sought  who  is  most  meet  to  suc- 
ceed." Hales  suggests  "George  Bromley  of  the  Temple"; 
"  ye  shall  thereby,  I  know,  win  the  hearts  of  a  great  many 
Protestants  who,  now  discouraged,  will  take  some  hope,  if 
they  may  hear  a  Protestant  lawyer  beareth  some  authority 
in  Westminster  Hall."  The  ejectment  of  men  learned  in 
the  Law  from  their  profession  would  have  complicated  the 
business  of  the  Courts  so  materially  that  the  reformers  in 
power  could  do  nothing  but  wink  at  non-compliance  with 
religious  changes  on  the  part  of  the  lawyers  until  such  time 
as  men  favourable  to  reform  had  been  trained  to  take  their 
places.  Nor  was  it  easy  to  get  the  better  of  such  men  as 
Edmund  Plowden,  whose  acumen  and  advocacy  on  behalf 
of  accused  Papists  often  stood  these  unfortunates  in  good 
stead.  But  the  difficulty  was  not  lessened  to  any  great  ex- 
tent while  Catholics  continued  to  study  for  the  Bar  and  to 
be  admitted  to  practice.  Hence  the  meaning  of  the  follow- 
ing letter  penned  by  Bishop  Grindal  to  Cecil  and  endorsed 
"  for  restraining  of  ill-affected  in  religion  to  be  called  to  any 
degree  in  Law."  "  Sir,  I  like  this  letter  very  well,  only  I 
wish  added  thereto,  a  commandment  to  the  Benchers  of 
every  House,  that  in  calling  men  to  the  Bench  or  Bar,  they 
reject  all  those  that  are  notoriously  known  or  vehemently 
suspected  to  be  adversaries  to  true  religion,  until  they  have 
sufficiently  purged  themselves,  etc." '  Two  years  later 
Archbishop  Parker  wrote  to  Cecil,  then  become  Lord 
Burghley,  reminding  him  that  though  the  action  taken  in 
1569  had  had  good  effect,  yet  that  the  Inns  of  Court  were 
again  grown  "  very  disordered  and  licentious  in  over  bold 
speeches  and  doings  touching  religion,"  and  asked  him  to 
renew  these  regulations  "  for  the  putting  out  of  commons, 
expulsion  and  reformation  of  sundry  the  corrupt  and  per- 

1  Lansd.  MS.  11,  No.  55,  20th  May,  1569.  The  "letter"  referred  to 
ordered  six  persons  to  be  excluded  from  commons  (Parker  Corresp., 
p.  384  note  2).  Cf.  also  Lansd.  MS.  109,  No.  4;  Calendar  of  Inner 
Temple  Records,  vol.  i,  Introd.,  pp.  1-li ;  P.R.O.  Dom.  Eliz.,  LX,  No.  70: 
CXVlll,  No.  69. 


448     TASK  OF  THE  ELIZABETHAN  BISHOPS 

verse  sort  in  religion  in  the  Inns  of  Court,"  for  the  Benchers 
had  received  back  those  previously  expelled  and  preferred 
other  suspect  persons  to  "  degrees  and  callings  there."  1 
Even  then  the  state  of  these  nurseries  of  lawyers  ceased 
not  to  cause  anxiety;  and  as  a  consequence,  during  1572 
the  Privy  Council  enjoined  on  Sandys,  then  Bishop  of 
London,  to  be  more  vigorous  "  to  understand  of  the  said 
contempts,"  which,  as  they  state,  continued  to  be  there 
practised.  "  The  former  disorders,"  say  they,  "  are  revived 
or  rather  increased."  The  subject  need  not  here  be  followed 
out  further;  it  may  be  found  in  the  records  of  the  various 
Inns  of  Court.  It  is  sufficient  here  to  recall  that  in  1572 
the  state  of  these  Inns  was  far  from  satisfactory.2  The 
Privy  Council  refer  to  efforts  they  had  previously  made; 
these  were  during  Grindal's  episcopate  and  are  mentioned 
in  Strype's  Life  of  that  prelate.3  "  Many  popish  gentlemen 
being  known  to  reside  in  the  Temple  as  students  of  the 
Law,  the  Council  by  their  letters  appointed  the  Bishop  (in 
whose  diocese  they  were),  with  the  rest  of  the  ecclesiastical 
commissioners,  to  call  for  several  of  them  before  them ; 
and  to  put  interrogatories  to  them  concerning  their  fre- 
quenting the  Temple  Church  and  the  Communion  there; 
concerning  their  going  to  hear  Mass  celebrated  in  the 
Temple,  in  White  Friars,  and  the  Spital;  concerning  their 
having  and  reading  the  books  of  Harding,  Dorman,  and 
others,  against  the  Queen's  Supremacy;  and  their  seeing 
of  letters  written  from  those  authors ;  and  lastly,  concern- 
ing divers  bad  speeches  and  expressions  uttered  by  them 
against  religion  and  the  preachers.  Some  of  these  after 
examination  were  committed  to  the  Fleet." 

Naturally,  the  lawyers  were  not  the  only  Papists  who  en- 


1  Parker  Corresp.,  pp.  384-5,  Nos.  290  and  291,  17th  June,  1571. 

2  Cf.  Lansd.  MS.  15,  No.  74.  A  modern  hand  has  endorsed  this 
paper  "  Puritanism,"  but  internal  evidence,  and  the  reference  to  previous 
action  which  was  certainly  directed  against  Catholic  students,  shows 
that  that  endorsement  betrays  a  misconception  of  the  drift  of  the 
paper,  which  should  have  been  more  properly  endorsed  "  Popery." 

3  P.  224. 


LONDON  449 

deavoured  to  obey  the  laws  of  their  Church,  and  to  hear 
Mass  and  frequent  the  Sacraments.  Hence  the  difficulties 
put  in  their  way  by  fine  and  imprisonment  were  to  some 
extent  met  by  stealth  and  secrecy.  Ambassadors'  resid- 
ences being  extra-territorial,  many  Catholics  strove  to 
practice  their  religion  by  having  recourse  to  these  houses, 
where,  by  international  law  and  custom,  chapels  were,  like 
the  rest  of  the  buildings,  free  from  molestation  or  intrusion. 
This  plea,  however,  was  over-ridden,  when  the  Privy 
Council  discovered  that  Catholics  were  in  the  habit  of 
regularly  attending  such  chapels,  when  it  was  no  longer 
safe  to  hear  or  say  Mass  in  private,  in  gentlemen's  houses. 
The  Spanish  Ambassador,  as  already  stated  elsewhere, 
was  at  this  time  Alvaro  de  Quadra,  Bishop  of  Avila.  In 
all  his  interviews  with  Elizabeth  he  was  fearlessly  out- 
spoken, particularly  as  to  the  religious  attitude  she  had 
assumed;  indeed,  as  he  stated  to  Cardinal  Granvelle  in  a 
despatch  dated  nth  July,  1562,  he  must  have  told  her 
some  unpleasant  truths  in  brutally  frank  language,  since  he 
said  he  had  never  written  anything  about  the  Queen  which 
he  had  not  had  the  courage  to  say  to  her,  to  her  face.1  Thus 
it  came  about  that,  owing  to  this  uncompromising  attitude 
as  ambassador,  coupled  with  his  character  as  a  Catholic 
bishop  who  naturally  sympathised  with  the  troubles  of  the 
imprisoned  Marian  bishops  and  of  the  Catholics  generally, 
his  position  in  England  daily  became  more  and  more 
difficult.  The  Privy  Council,  on  their  side,  were  not  slow 
to  heap  upon  him  every  kind  of  indignity;  and  having 
obtained  knowledge  of  his  political  schemes  from  a  traitor- 
ous secretary  of  his,  his  messenger  was  waylaid,  his  des- 
patches were  rifled,  and,  since  copies  were  forwarded  to 
Cecil,  it  is  hard  to  acquit  the  Council  either  of  connivance 
or  instigation  in  this  outrage.2  From  that  time  guards  were 
placed  by  the  Council  night  and  day  at  the  gates  of 
Durham   Place,  the   Ambassador's  house,  with  orders  to 

1  Chron.  Belg.,  No.  dcccxcv,  iii,  p.  72. 

2  Cf.  ibid.,  No.  DCCCLXXlll,  iii,  p.  36,  24th  May,  1562;  P.R.O.  Dom. 
Eliz.,  v,  No.  170,  Cecil  to  Chaloner,  8th  June,  1562. 

G  G 


450     TASK  OF  THE  ELIZABETHAN  BISHOPS 

arrest  any  Englishman  attempting  to  enter,  so  that  no  one 
dared  set  foot  in  the  place,  and  Quadra  became  virtually  a 
prisoner.1  In  September  the  report  was  current  that  Quadra 
would  be  arrested;2  and  at  last,  early  in  January,  1562-3, 
the  Council  resorted  to  extreme  measures  as  recounted  by 
Quadra  in  the  following  lengthy  despatch  to  King  Philip: 
"  I  wrote  to  your  Majesty  the  news  here  on  the  4th  inst. ; 
and  since  then  the  Queen's  Council  [under  pretext  of  out- 
rages committed  by  Quadra,  and  of  harbour  given  to  an 
Italian  assassin]  have  brought  to  a  head  what  they  have 
long  been  hankering  to  do,  namely,  to  try  to  turn  me  out 
of  the  kingdom  by  ill-treatment,  or,  at  all  events,  to  disarm 
me  from  opposing  them  during  this  Parliament  .  .  .  They 
sent  .  .  .  the  Marshal  to  tell  me  it  was  the  Queen's  will 
that  I  should  give  up  the  keys  of  all  the  house  doors — both 
those  leading  to  the  street  and  those  to  the  river  and  the 
garden, — to  the  custodian,  in  order  that  he  might  render 
an  account  of  all  those  who  went  in  and  out.  This  custo- 
dian is  an  Englishman  and  a  very  great  heretic.  [Quadra 
of  course  refused,  and]  on  the  following  day,  which  was 
Twelfth  Day,  at  the  hour  when  certain  people  were  coming 
hither  to  hear  Mass,  some  locksmiths  were  sent,  without 
any  respect  or  consideration,  to  change  the  locks  and  keys 
on  the  doors  and  hand  the  new  keys  to  the  custodian. 
[Quadra  protested  against  this  to  the  Council,  demanding 
redress,  or  that  a  new  house  should  be  assigned  him,  and 
that  these  molestations  should  cease.]  They  consulted  what 
answer  they  should  give  me,  and  replied  through  Cecil  in 
a  very  long  discourse,  the  substance  of  which  was  that  the 
Queen  did  not  desire  that  I  should  remain  longer  in  her 
house  .  .  .  The  reasons  .  .  .  were  .  .  .  because  conspiracies 
had  been  hatched  there  against  the  Queen's  interest,  of 
which  I  was  the  prime  mover  and  fomenter;  ...  In  addi- 
tion to  this,  all  the  Papists  in  London  came  by  water  here 
to  Mass  .  .  .  [Quadra  denied  taking  part  in  conspiracies 
&c. ;  but]  with  regard  to  certain  persons  attending  Mass,  I 

1  Chron.  Belg.,  No.  dccclxiv,  iii,  5th  May,  1562. 

2  Ibid.,  No.  dccccxxxvi,  iii,  p.  134,  7th  September,  1562. 


LONDON  45i 

did  not  know  of  or  believe  that  anybody  came  but  your 
Majesty's  vassals,  and  people  who  had  a  perfect  right  to 
come,  and,  whoever  were  the  persons  who  were  in  the 
habit  of  visiting  my  house,  they  were  honest  people  and  he 
had  no  right  to  speak  of  them  in  the  terms  he  had  used. 
.  .  .  They  have  thought  well  to  begin  by  turning  me  out 
of  this  house  which  they  had  decided  upon  long  ago,  as  I 
can  prove;  and  to  offer  me  this  incivility  on  the  eve  of  the 
meeting  of  Parliament  both  to  dishearten  the  Catholics  who 
come  hither  from  all  parts  of  the  kingdom,  and  to  encourage 
the  heretics,  and  also  because  they  feared  that  this  house 
which  from  its  being  a  thoroughfare,  offers  great  facilities 
for  the  secret  admittance  of  many  different  persons,  might 
be  used  by  me  to  arrange  some  plot  against  them  of  which 
they  go  in  great  fear,  and  with  ample  reason.  Besides  this, 
the  heretics  are  so  perfectly  furious  to  see  that  /  keep  these 
Catholics  together  with  some  amount  of  unity,  that  they  can- 
not bear  it,  and  the  Chancellor  said  the  other  day  that 
whilst  I  was  here  the  Queen  need  not  expect  to  establish 
her  authority  and  religion  in  the  country.  ...  If  they 
dared,  I  believe  they  would  behead  every  Catholic  in  the 
country,  but  the  godly  ones  are  many  and  would  sell  their 
lives  dearly  if  it  were  to  come  to  this.  I  say  nothing  of 
London,  for  certainly  it  is  the  worst  place  in  the  kingdom. 
.  .  .  They  told  me  finally  that  it  must  be  understood  that 
if  I  did  anything  outside  my  functions  as  ambassador,  the 
Queen  would  take  steps  in  accordance  with  what  the  laws 
of  the  land  provided,  and  by  these  laws  I  should  be  judged."1 
This  document  explains  the  situation  more  fully  than  any 
other  description  could  do;  but  Quadra's  appearance  before 
the  Council  on  the  day  after  the  outrage,  in  order  to  pro- 
test against  this  infringement  of  his  privileges  can  be  further 
elucidated  from  home  sources.  From  Cecil's  "very  long 
discourse,"  the  following  extracts  fill  up  lacunae  in  the 
Spaniard's  narrative.  "  And  where  you  justified  the  good 
using  of  the  house,  it  is  to  be  proved  that  you  not  only 

1  Hume,  Spanish  State  Papers,  Simancas,  No.  202,  10th  January, 
1562-3. 


452     TASK  OF  THE  ELIZABETHAN  BISHOPS 

admitted  some  of  our  subjects  to  the  hearing  of  your 
private  Mass,  but  had  also  conference  with  some  traitors, 
letting  them  in  through  the  water-gate;  and,  to  be  plain, 
that  under  colour  of  religion,  you  are  the  cause  that  a 
great  number  of  the  Queen's  subjects  be  seditious."  .  .  . 
Quadra  is  then  reported  to  have  thus  replied:  "I  protest 
.  .  .  that  I  ever  did  meddle  in  anything  contrary  to  the 
orders  of  the  realm,  if  it  have  not  been  in  matters  of 
religion,  wherein  I  do  not  only  dissent,  but  think  it  allow- 
able and  commendable  for  me  so  to  profess  therein."  He 
expressed  himself  at  a  loss  to  guess  who  was  the  traitor  he 
was  accused  of  conferring  with,  but  the  report  makes  this 
clear:  "  but  of  Adrian  Fortescue  the  arch-traitor,  with  whom 
he  had  all  this  last  summer  frequent  conference,  he  would 
not  once  speak."  *  The  withdrawal  of  Durham  Place  from 
the  Spanish  ambassador's  use  had  been  suggested  long 
before,  precisely  on  the  score  that  it  was  a  "  thoroughfare," 
i.e.y  that  it  had  a  back  entrance  from  the  Thames,  as  well 
as  the  principal  one  from  the  Strand.  Sir  Thomas  Chaloner, 
writing  to  Cecil  from  Antwerp  on  2nd  September,  1559, 
made  a  grimly  humorous  reference  to  the  possibilities  thus 
afforded  for  clandestine  meetings  and  for  escape.  Speaking 
of  the  Bishop  of  Aquila,  he  said:  "  I  trust  (with  an  honest 
pretence  of  removing),  ye  will  remember  my  former  letters, 
to  lodge  him  where  good  espy  may  be  had  over  his  espies. 
Durham  Place  is  too  great  a  house  for  his  small  train,  and 
is  an  ill  air,  too  near  the  water.  Our  deposed  B[ishops]  I 
understand,  do  visit  him  now  and  then."2  These  extracts 
have  been  necessary  to  show  that  politics  were  to  some 
extent  mixed  with  religion  in  this  case,  and  that  the 
Council  were  justified  in  looking  after  national  interests  so 
far  as  those  interests  were  endangered.  But  it  would  seem 
that  the  plea  of  politics  was  a  convenient  one  to  justify 
religious  rancour  and  persecution ;  and  with  this  prelude 
the  way  is  opened  for  the  appearance  of  Bishop  Grindal  on 
the  scene,  as  one  of  the  London  magistrates  to  whom  the 

1  Cotton  MS.  Vespasian  C.  VII,  No.  70,  f.  259,  7th  January,  1562-3. 

2  P.R.O.  Foreign,  Elizabeth,  VII,  No.  662. 


LONDON  453 

task  was  entrusted  by  the  Privy  Council  of  arresting  any- 
one entering  Quadra's  house  to  attend  Mass.  Quadra  gives 
the  details  in  a  letter  to  Philip:  "  On  the  day  of  the  Purifica- 
tion of  our  Lady  .  .  .  they  sent  at  dawn  of  day  six  or  eight 
persons,  who,  posted  in  the  house-steward's  room,  wrote 
down  the  names  of  everybody  who  entered  my  house;  and 
two  of  them,  whilst  I  was  at  Mass,  went  up  to  the  chapel 
and  took  note  of  everyone  who  was  therein,  and,  as  soon 
as  Mass  was  finished,  began  to  arrest  within  my  house 
whomsoever  they  pleased.  .  .  .  When  the  Marshal  entered 
he  went  up  to  my  apartment  and  told  me  in  the  Queen's 
name  to  deliver  up  all  the  English  people  in  the  house,  as 
her  Majesty  had  been  informed  that  over  200  of  them  had 
come  to  Mass.  I  told  him  I  had  seen  no  English  people 
and  he  would  find  none,  which  was  true.  .  .  .  As  there  were 
no  English,  they  arrested  Spaniards,  Italians  and  Flemings 
at  their  will.  ...  It  appears  as  if  they  were  determined  to 
prohibit  anyone  from  coming  to  Mass,  even  foreigners,  and 
to  make  those  who  are  naturalised  in  London  pay  the  same 
penalty  as  if  they  were  English."  1 

The  English  Government  had  gone  too  far,  and  Sir  John 
Mason  wrote  to  Sir  Thomas  Chaloner,  our  Ambassador  in 
Spain,  to  put  as  good  a  face  on  the  matter  as  possible. 
"  It  may  fortune  to  come  to  your  ears,"  he  said,  "  that  the 
Spanish  Ambassador  hath  lately  been  here  very  ill  used, 
as  indeed  the  matter  might  have  been  better  used  by  such 
as  were  put  in  trust,  who  abused  their  commission.  The 
truth  was  that  on  Candlemas  Day,  the  Queen's  Highness 
being  advertised  that  sundry  of  her  subjects  would  that 
day  to  both  the  Ambassador's  house  to  hear  Mass  and  to 
be  present  at  the  rest  of  the  ceremony  wont  to  be  used  on 
that  day,  took  order  by  her  Council  that  certain  should  be 
sent  to  try  the  truth  thereof.  Who,  mistaking  their  instruc- 
tions, went  malapertly  to  the  place  where  the  Ambassador 
was  at  service,  and  there  laid  hands  upon  certain  of  her 
said  subjects.     The  meaning  was  they  should   not  have 

1  Hume,  Spanish  State  Papers^  Simancas,  No.  211,  7th  February, 
1562-3. 


454     TASK  OF  THE  ELIZABETHAN  BISHOPS 

entered  within  the  gates,  which  hath  been  declared  to  the 
Ambassador,  and  I  suppose  he  be  satisfied." 1  This  lame 
account  is  also  untrue,  as  Quadra  says  there  were  no  English 
subjects  present  on  that  occasion;  notwithstanding  this, 
however,  writing  later,  he  repeats  to  his  royal  master  that 
"  these  Councillors  persist  in  refusing  to  allow  any  of  your 
Majesty's  subjects  to  attend  Mass."2  Bishop  Quadra's 
troubles  were  ended  by  his  death  on  26th  August,  1563,  at 
Langley:  he  fell  a  victim  to  the  plague  then  ravaging  Eng- 
land and  which  had  already  carried  off  several  of  his 
attendants;  but  before  that  event,  he  was  suspected  of 
having  been  instrumental  in  aiding  the  escape  of  Dr.  Story. 
He  wrote  a  lengthy  account  of  the  whole  matter  to  King 
Philip,  showing  how  Story,  unknown  to  him,  had  taken 
refuge  in  Durham  Place  after  escaping  from  the  Marshalsea, 
but  that  Quadra's  chaplain  induced  him  to  leave  the  house, 
and  that  after  exciting  adventures  he  had  got  away  to 
Flanders.3  As  a  matter  of  fact,  though  Quadra  had  had 
nothing  to  do  with  the  affair,  he  thought  it  prudent  to  get 
his  chaplain  out  of  England  for  the  following  reasons  which 
are  of  peculiar  interest  as  regards  the  English  Catholics. 
Quadra  states  that  this  Mathias  Rodarte  "  is  a  man  who 
knows  every  Catholic  in  the  place  and  has  absolved  and 
administered  the  Sacraments  to  many";  hence  the  neces- 
sity of  getting  him  out  of  the  country,  for,  were  he  to  be 
summoned  for  examination  before  the  Council,  "he  is  a 
simple  kind  of  man  of  small  courage  who  would  not  be 
able  to  deny  the  truth  of  anything,"  and  he  might  thus  be 
brought  to  "  expose  many  people  to  suffering  and  injury. 
.  .  .  God  grant  that  I  may  be  able  to  send  the  chaplain  off 
safely,  for  certainly,  if  they  take  him,  the  injury  would  be 
very  serious."  *   The  difficulties  which  had  beset  the  Council 

1  Cotton  MS.  Galba  C  1,  No.  29,  f.  87,  27th  February,  1562-3. 

2  Hume,  Spanish  State  Papers,  Simancas,  No.  215,  18th  March, 
1562-3. 

3  Cf.  Chron.  Belg.,  No.  mlxxxvi,  iii,  p.  364,  Aquila  to  Cardinal  de 
Granvelle,  8th  May,  1563. 

4  Hume,  Spanish  State  Papers,  Simancas,  No.  223,  9th  May,  1563. 


LONDON  455 

in  this  case,  and  the  complications  which  had  almost  arisen 
might  have  been  thought  sufficiently  grave  to  have  taught 
a  useful  lesson  in  caution  for  the  future.  Yet  almost  pre- 
cisely the  same  infringement  of  ambassadorial  privileges 
took  place  at  the  Portuguese  envoy's  house  at  Hoxton. 
Bishop  Grindal's  letter  to  shift  the  blame  from  his  own 
shoulders  to  those  of  his  menials  '  need  not  be  given  here, 
as  it  is  already  in  print.2  To  the  original  in  the  Record 
Office  is  appended  the  depositions  of  the  constables,  from 
which  it  appears  that  the  raid,  made  the  day  before,  resulted 
in  the  attempt  to  arrest  eight  Englishmen  found  kneeling 
in  the  chapel,  hearing  Mass.  The  Ambassador  came  to  the 
constables  "  very  fiercely,  calling  them  villains,  dogs,  and 
such  like,  and  enquired  by  what  authority  they  came: 
whereupon  the  constable  caused  the  letter  of  the  commis- 
sioners to  be  read,  and  a  Portugal  that  understood  English 
standing  by,  declared  the  effect  thereof  to  the  Ambassador. 
Then  the  Ambassador  enquired  whose  hands  [i.e.,  signa- 
tures] were  at  the  same  letters,  unto  whom  answer  was 
made:  the  Bishop  of  London  and  others  that  were  in  com- 
mission for  such  matters.  Whereunto  the  Ambassador  said 
he  cared  not  for  the  Bishop  of  London  his  hand,  if  the 
Queen's  hand  were  not  at  it;  and  so,  with  most  vile  words 
caused  them  to  be  thrust  out  of  the  gates,  and  so  all  the 
English  persons  there  at  Mass  conveyed  away."  A  note  or 
memorandum  is  added  to  the  effect  that  "  the  gate  is  never 
left  open  at  any  time  all  the  day  but  when  as  they  be  at 
Mass,  to  them  that  are  English  persons  that  come  to  it, 
may  straight  go  to  the  Chapel  without  stay  or  let,  and  not 
to  be  seen." 3  A  similar  occurrence  is  recorded  by  Strype 
as  having  taken  place  in  1576,  that  time  at  Lord  Burghley's 
own  order;  hence,  since  previous  experience  of  misunder- 
standing of  orders  should  have  taught  caution,  and  yet 
again  a  forcible  entrance  into  an  ambassador's  house  was 
effected,  it  seems  fairly  established  that  such  an  entry  had 

1  P.R.O.  Dom.  Eliz.,  xlviii,  No.  26,  25th  October,  1568. 

2  Remains  of  Abp.  Gritulal,  p.  300,  No.  52,  to  Cecil. 

3  P.R.O.  Dom.  Eliz.,  XLVIII,  No.  26  i. 


456    TASK  OF  THE  ELIZABETHAN  BISHOPS 

been  planned  not  only  then,  but  previously ;  and  the  devious 
policy  followed  in  those  days  found  an  explanation  that 
would  avert  the  ordinary  consequences  by  shifting  the 
blame  on  to  the  shoulders  of  underlings.1  In  1572  or  1573, 
a  letter  was  sent  by  Lord  Burghley  to  Lord  Buckhurst, 
ordering  him  to  call  upon  the  French  Ambassador  and  re- 
quire him  in  the  Queen's  name  "  not  to  suffer  such  recourse 
of  all  strangers  to  his  house  to  hear  Mass."  This  letter  was 
drafted  by  Sir  Thomas  Smythe,  and  was  corrected  by 
Lord  Burghley  himself.2  The  missive  states  that  since  the 
massacre  of  St.  Bartholomew,  "  there  is  now  more  resort 
than  was  accustomed  of  English,  Scots,  Italians  and  French- 
men to  the  Mass  permitted  to  the  French  King's  Ambas- 
sador's [house,  to  hear  Mass  there]  to  be  said  to  him  and 
his  family  only,  which  seemeth  rather  to  be  done  of  a 
'  braverie '  and  rejoicing  of  that  cruelty,  or  else  that  they, 
more  emboldened  upon  some  hope,  dare  now  do  that  which 
before  they  durst  not." 

But  it  was  not  only  under  the  aegis  of  an  ambassador 
that  the  Catholics  ventured  to  hear  Mass.  Some  nobles 
adhering  to  the  old  Faith  were,  at  least  in  the  early  days 
of  Elizabeth's  reign,  too  powerful  to  be  attacked  with 
impunity,  and  thus  their  continuance  in  the  old  worship 
was  tolerated,  or  rather  winked  at,  by  the  Council ;  but 
where  the  practice  could  be  safely  attacked,  no  effort  was 
spared  to  eradicate  it  and  to  punish  both  sayers  and  hearers. 
Thus  the  petition  exists  of  one  who  had  incurred  the 
penalty  attached  to  hearing  Mass,  and  who  abjectly  be- 
sought the  favour  of  the  Council  on  promise  of  future 
conformity.3  Bishop  Grindal  busied  himself  in  magisterially 
enquiring  into  "  Mass  matters,"  when  such  were  brought 
before  his  cognisance;  and  thus  we  learn  of  Mass  said  at 
Boreham,  Essex,  in  Sir  Thomas  Wharton's  house4;  at  New- 
hall,  Essex,  the  same  knight's  residence;  at  Borley,  Essex, 
Sir  Edward  Waldegrave's  place;  "  in  one  Stubbe's  house,  in 

1  Cf.  Strype,  Ann.  II,  pp.  24-30. 

2  Cf.  Harl.  MS.  4943,  "  Letters  touching  Religion,"  f.  330^. 

3  Cf.  P.R.O.  Dom.  Eliz.,  XII,  No.  13,  ?  1560.  4  Ibid. 


LONDON  457 

Westminster,  in  the  Broad  Sanctuary";  and  "in  my  Lady 
Carew's  house,  beside  St.  Dunstan's  in  the  West."  '  Two 
letters  from  Quadra  to  King  Philip  refer  to  some  of  these 
cases.  Writing  on  3rd  June,  1561,  he  said,  "...  with  the 
object  of  preventing  any  disturbance  in  the  country  this 
summer  which  could  give  an  excuse  for  the  interference  of 
their  neighbours,  they  have  thought  fit  to  apprehend  all  the 
Catholics  they  could  lay  hands  on,  and  so  to  make  sure  of 
them.  Any  cause,  however  small,  has  sufficed  for  their 
imprisonment,  and  even  in  cases  where  nothing  is  proved 
against  them  but  hearing  Mass,  the  punishment  for  which 
on  the  first  occasion  is  only  a  fine  of  200  ducats,  they  have 
shut  them  up  where  no  one  can  see  them,  and  refuse  to 
punish  them  according  to  the  law  as  they  are  determined 
to  keep  them  fast."  2  At  the  close  of  the  same  month 
Quadra  wrote:  "  the  news  now  is  that  Waldegrave  and  his 
wife  and  Wharton  and  some  more  of  the  Catholics  recently 
arrested,  have  been  sentenced  to  the  penalty  provided  by 
the  statute  for  hearing  Mass.  Although  the  sentence  was 
pronounced  at  Westminster  with  all  the  solemnity  usual 
in  cases  of  treason,  nothing  was  found  against  them  but 
the  hearing  of  the  Mass."3  In  respect  to  Lady  Carew, 
above  mentioned,  a  letter  exists,  which,  by  reason  of  the 
importance  of  its  contents,  must  be  here  quoted  almost  in 
extenso.  It  was  written  by  Bishops  Grindal  and  Coxe  to 
the  Council.  "We  laboured  the  10th  of  this  month  to  ex- 
amine the  sayer  and  hearers  of  the  Mass  at  my  Lady 
Carew's  house  .  .  .  meaning  thereby  to  find  knowledge  of 
more  of  that  sort ;  so  it  is  that  we  can  come  to  no  know- 
ledge of  any  more  matter.  The  cause  is  only  this:  neither 
the  priest  nor  any  of  his  auditors,  not  so  much  as  the 
kitchen-maid  will  receive  any  oath  before  us,  to  answer  to 
Articles,  but  stoutly  say  they  will  not  swear,  and  say  also 
they  will  neither  accuse  themselves  nor  none  other.  This 
is  grown  now  lately,  as  we  find  by  examinations,  to  be  a 

1  P.R.O.  Dom.  Eliz.,  XVI,  Nos.  49  and  49  i  and  ii,  17th  April,  1561. 
*  Hume,  Spanish  State  Papers,  Simancas,  No.  132. 
3  Ibid.,  No.  134,  30th  June,  1561. 


of  ~  ■ 

•RSITY 


458     TASK  OF  THE  ELIZABETHAN  BISHOPS 

rule  to  all  the  scholars  of  that  school,  .  .  .  great  inconveni- 
ences may  follow  hereof,  if  some  remedy  be  not  devised 
.  .  .  some  think  that  if  this  priest  Haverd  might  be  put  to 
some  kind  of  torment,  and  so  driven  to  confess  what  he 
knoweth,  he  might  gain  the  Queen's  Majesty  a  good  mass 
of  money  by  the  Masses  that  he  hath  said." 1  The  early 
Tower  and  Prison  Lists  preserve  the  above-given  names 
and  several  more  as  being  in  durance  solely  for  hearing 
Mass.2  In  1567  letters  were  sent  to  Bishop  Grindal  from 
the  Council,  urging  him  to  take  measures  for  putting  a  stop 
to  the  Mass-saying  which  they  realised  was  still  far  from 
being  an  uncommon  offence,  for  the  Council  refer  to 
"sundry  conventicles  of  evil-disposed  subjects"  who  "do 
obstinately  .  .  .  refuse  to  obey  the  laws  ...  by  using  to 
have  the  private  Mass  and  other  superstitious  ceremonies 
in  their  houses."  He  was  therefore  instructed  to  give  orders 
to  the  Sheriff  "  that  he  with  speed  enter  into  the  house  .  .  . 
and  take  sure  order  that  none  escape  .  .  .  until  due  search 
be  made  of  all  persons  there  to  be  found.  And  further,  to 
search  for  all  writings,  letters,  books  and  other  things  be- 
longing to  the  usage  of  the  Mass  .  .  .  and  .  .  .  if  you  think 
any  other  place  likely  to  be  also  suspected  of  the  like  dis- 
orders, that  you  cause  the  like  proceedings  to  be  used  as 
circumspectly  as  you  may." 3  These  domiciliary  visits 
spared  no  one:  even  a  student  could  not  collect  books  for 
his  studies  without  the  risk  of  getting  into  trouble.  Thus, 
in  1568,  Stowe  the  historian  was  subjected  to  the  inquisi- 
torial visit  of  Grindal  through  his  commissary,  who  confis- 
cated a  large  number  of  "  popish  books  and  superstitious 
writings  "  which  that  eminent  antiquary  had  gathered  to- 
gether." 4 

1  13th  September,  1562,  Haynes,  Burghley  State  Papers,  p.  395. 

2  Cf.  Bar/.  MS.  360,  ff.  7  and  34;  P.R.O.  Dom.  Eliz.,  xvi,  Nos.  55, 
65,  65^;  vii,  No.  19;  xvm,  Nos.  1-5;  xxin,  No.  40;  all  lately  printed 
in  Catholic  Record  Society's  Publications,  I,  pp.  48-57. 

3  Strype's  Grindal,  App.  Ill,  p.  472. 

4  Ibid.,  p.  184,  and  App.  xvn,  p.  516.  Thomas  Wattes,  in  sending 
to  the  Bishop  of  London  a  catalogue  of  Stowe's  books,  accompanied  his 
list  with  the  following  letter,  dated  21st  February,  1568-9:  "  Mr.  Beale 


LONDON  459 

In  1570  Grindal  was  translated  to  the  Northern  Metro- 
politan See,  and  it  was  proposed  to  bring  Edwin  Sandys 
from  Worcester  to  take  his  place  in  London.  Sandys  re- 
fused on  the  plea  of  ill-health,  but  brought  on  himself 
Cecil's  displeasure  for  so  doing.  This  so  scared  him  that  he 
determined  to  accept  what  he  had  before  refused.  The 
letter  is  characteristic,  as  showing  that  the  bishops  recog- 
nised that  what  power  they  exercised  was  based  wholly  on 
lay  support  and  Court  sunshine.  "  You  will  not  in  honour 
and  good  nature  cast  away  your  poor  friend  without  all 
cause:  if  you  glome1  upon  me,  I  shall  serve  Christ's  Church 
with  less  comfort  and  to  less  profit.  The  world  thinketh 
that  you  are  my  good  friend,  and  that  I  may  do  somewhat 
with  you;  if  the  Papists  may  learn  misliking,  they  will 
easily  over-crow  me,  and  it  will  much  weaken  my  work  in 
God's  Church.  I  have,  as  it  were,  already  lost  the  Earl  of 
Leicester  ...  if  you  shall  mislike  of  me  also,  evil  is  my 
hap.  Sir,  ...  if  you  bid  me  come  up,  I  will,  and  take  that 
office  upon  me,  whatsoever  become  of  me." 2  This  reliance 
on  secular  support  was  an  abiding  characteristic.  Sandys, 
writing  to  Lords  Burghley  and  Leicester  on  5th  August, 
1573,  about  the  excesses  of  the  Puritan  fanatics,  twice  sug- 
gested that  "a  sharp  letter  from  her  Majesty  would  cut  the 

and  I  with  Mr.  Williams  have  been  this  forenoon  at  Stowe's  house 
and  have  [perused  all  his  books.  He  hath  a  great  store  of  foolish 
fabulous  books  of  old  print  as  of  St.  Degory,  Triamont,  etc.  He  hath 
also  a  great  sort  of  old  written  English  Chronicles,  both  in  parchment 
and  in  paper,  some  long,  some  short;  he  hath  besides  as  it  were 
Miscellanea  of  divers  sorts  both  touching  physic,  surgery,  and  herbs 
with  medicines  of  experience,  and  also  touching  old  fantastical  popish 
books  printed  in  the  old  time,  with  many  such  also  written  in  old 
English  in  parchment.  All  which  we  have  pretermitted  to  take  any 
inventory  of.  We  have  only  taken  a  note  of  such  books  as  have  been 
lately  set  forth  in  this  realm  or  beyond  the  seas  for  defence  of  Papistry, 
with  a  note  of  some  of  his  own  devices  and  writings  touching  such 
matter  as  he  hath  gathered  for  chronicles ;  whereabout  he  seemeth  to 
have  bestowed  much  travail.  His  books  declare  him  to  be  a  great 
fautor  of  Papistry"  (Lansd.  MS.  11,  No.  3). 

1  I.e.,  look  gloomy,  or  lour. 

2  Lansd.  MS.  12,  No.  82,  26th  April,  1570. 


460    TASK  OF  THE  ELIZABETHAN  BISHOPS 

courage  of  these  men"  or  would  secure  that  they  should  not 
"  meddle  in  matters  of  this  State  neither  admit  any  of  her 
Majesty's  subjects  to  their  communion."  The  power  rested 
with  them :  "  it  is  high  time  to  lay  to  your  hands,  if  you 
mind  the  good  of  God's  Church.  .  .  .  For  my  part  I  will  do 
what  I  can  .  .  .  but  I  am  too  weak;  yea,  if  all  of  my  call- 
ing were  joined  together  we  are  too  weak,  our  estimation  is 
little,  our  authority  is  less,  so  that  we  are  become  con- 
temptible in  the  eyes  of  the  basest  sort  of  people."  1 

Of  William  Herle's  multitudinous"  informations"  to  Lord 
Burghley,  one  only  need  occupy  the  reader's  attention  here. 
It  is  dated  28th  September,  1572,  dealing  with  certain  ex- 
aminations conducted  by  the  Bishop  of  London,  and  show- 
ing the  underhand  work  to  which  Sandys  could  on  occasion 
lend  himself.  But  the  principal  item  indicates  that  priests 
were  supported  by  noblemen,  that  Papists  were  numerous 
and  that  ambassadors'  houses  were  places  of  resort  for  them. 
"  There  is  one  Douglas  in  prison,"  wrote  Herle,  "committed 
by  the  Bishop,  who  is  a  priest,  and  hath  changed  his  habits, 
having  £\o  a  year  pension  of  the  Lord  Vaux;  which  priest 
lives  very  gentlemanlike  in  this  town  resorting  familiarly  to 
the  French  Ambassador,  and  is  favoured  of  a  great  number 
of  Papists,  of  whom,  if  I  can  understand  any  more  par- 
ticular matter,  I  will  advertise  the  Bishop  with  speed  .  .  ,"2 
This  resort  to  the  foreign  ambassadors  had  always  been  a 
crux  to  the  Government.  Hence  Sandys,  evidently  in- 
structed by  Cecil,  made  a  sudden  descent  on  Signor  Giraldi's 
house  in  Tower  Street,  that  gentleman  being  the  Portuguese 
Ambassador,  "  who  of  too  much  boldness  and  without  any 
colour  of  authority,"  as  Sandys  wrote  to  Lord  Burghley  in 
recounting  his  exploits,  "  hath  fostered  Mass-mongers  of 
long  time  in  his  house.  ...  I  understanding  of  it  .  .  .  re- 
quired the  Sheriff  of  London  ...  to  apprehend  such  as  he 
should  find  there  committing  idolatry.  Sundry  he  found 
there  ready  to  worship  the  Calf,  only  he  apprehended  four 
students  at  law  .  .  .  those  I  committed  to  the  Fleet.  .  .  . 
Francis  Gerald  the  Portingale  offered  to  shoot  daggs.  .  .  . 

1  Lansd.  MS.  17,  No.  43.  2  Ibid.,  15,  No.  86. 


LONDON  461 

There  was  found  the  altar  prepared,  the  chalice,  and  their 
bread-God ;  and  in  the  house  as  I  hear,  a  good  number  of 
Englishmen  hid,  as  minded  to  hear  Mass.  Because  the 
Sheriff  had  neither  apprehended  the  Portingale,  neither  the 
Mass-priest,  I  gave  commission  ...  to  apprehend  them 
both,  but  .  .  .  the  Portingale  is  at  the  Court  to  complain."  l 
At  the  same  time  he  wrote  to  Lord  Leicester,  expressing 
his  sentiments  about  Giraldi  the  "  calf-worshipper  "  and  his 
Faith,  in  outrageously  violent  terms.  Sandys  was  certainly 
"  thorough."  "  The  Portingale  hath  complained  at  the 
Court  as  if  he  should  have  been  evil  used ;  no,  my  Lord,  he 
hath  been  evil  suffered.  .  .  .  This  idolatrous  proud  Portin- 
gale hath  daily,  Sundays  and  holydays,  had  Mass  in  his 
house  this  twelvemonth,  as  I  am  credibly  informed,  where- 
unto  hath  resorted  from  time  to  time  twenty  at  the  least  of 
her  Majesty's  subjects.  .  .  .  This  wicked  blasphemy,  this  vile 
idolatry,  her  Majesty  in  conscience  may  not  suffer:  to  suffer 
it  were  to  be  partaker  of  it.  .  .  .  The  Sheriff  apprehended  a 
few  of  the  simple  sort,  but  he  suffered  the  author  of  this  evil 
to  escape." 2  About  this  same  period  Sir  Thomas  Smythe 
informed  Lord  Burghley  that  "  here  was  this  day  with  me 
two  men  to  whom  my  Lord  of  Shrewsbury  gave  commission 
to  seek  out  conjurers  and  Mass-mongers,  who,  as  appeareth, 
hath  done  their  endeavours  very  diligently  .  .  .  with  a  dis- 
covery of  a  pretty  nest  of  Papists."  Later,  he  wrote :  "  here 
is  also  come  more  judicia  of  those  conjurers  who  be  already 
taken,  and  a  foul  knot  of  papistical  Justices  of  Peace  dis- 
covered, and  of  Massing  priests."3  Sandys  having  been 
brought  to  London  as  being  a  strong  reformer,  set  about 
justifying  his  selection,  and  his  term  of  office  in  London 
was  punctuated  by  periodical  descents  upon  suspected 
houses.  The  hauls  thus  made  showed  that  the  determina- 
tion of  the  Papists  had  not  been  daunted,  and  that  there 
were  considerable  numbers  of  them  braving  every  risk  in 

1  Lansd.  MS.  16,  No.  25,  2nd  March,  1572-3. 

2  Ibid.,  16,  No.  26,  4th  March,  1572-3,  not  signed,  but  endorsed  by 
L.  Burghley,  "  The  Bp.  of  London  to  my  L.  of  Leicester." 

3  Ibid.,  16,  Nos.  42,  43,  12th  and  14th  February,  1572-3. 


462     TASK  OF  THE  ELIZABETHAN  BISHOPS 

order  to  follow  the  requirements  of  their  Faith.  Thus,  on 
the  4th  April,  1574,  a  list  was  drawn  up  of  "  persons  appre- 
hended at  Mass."  This  list  contained  upwards  of  forty-five 
names.  Twenty-three  persons  were  arrested  at  "Lady  Mor- 
ley's  chamber,  by  Aldgate,"  including  Dolman  the  priest; 
Oliver  Heywood,  a  priest,  and  eleven  others  were  seized  at 
"  Lady  Guildford's  in  Trinity  Lane,  beside  Queen  Hive 
[Queenhithe]";  while  "at  Mr.  Carus's  at  the  Lime  House, 
beside  London  "  ten  named  persons  besides  "  others  "  were 
captured  by  the  Recorder  of  London  "not  at  Mass,  but  all 
things  prepared  for  the  saying  of  Mass."  1 

Bishop  Sandys,  as  has  been  already  seen,  held  strong 
views,  which  he  expressed  as  strongly,  on  the  subject  of  the 
Mass  in  general,  and  on  its  being  allowed  at  the  "  Portin- 
gale"  Ambassador's  in  particular.  Notwithstanding  the  raid 
made  on  that  gentleman's  house  early  in  1573,  the  usual 
practices  of  a  Catholic  household  were  resumed.  This  was 
too  much  for  Sandys,  apparently ;  and  his  representations 
led  to  another  forcible  entry  being  made  into  the  same 
privileged  domicile,  this  time  in  the  autumn  of  1576.  The 
whole  history  is  graphically  told  in  a  series  of  papers  in  the 
Lansdowne  collection  of  MSS.2  The  strangers  arrested  on 
that  occasion  do  not  concern  us;  but  the  Sheriff  named 
twelve  Englishmen  seized  and  put  into  the  Counters  of 
Wood  Street  and  Poultry,  while  Lord  Burghley  added  the 
name  of  another.  From  the  Sheriff's  covering  letter  it  is 
evident  that  some  others  effected  their  escape.  The  Portu- 
guese Ambassador  made  serious  representations  to  the 
Queen  about  the  indignity  offered  to  him ;  and  to  pacify 
him,  Fleetwood,  the  Recorder  of  London,  immediately  re- 
sponsible for  the  raid,  was  sent  to  the  Fleet,  whence  he 
wrote  to  Lord  Burghley  about  his  share  in  the  outrage, 
"  touching  the  repair  of  these  lewd  people  the  Queen's  sub- 
jects that  come  to  his  [Guarras's]  Mass."  The  real  nature  of 
Fleetwood's  incarceration  may  be  gauged  from  this  same 
letter.  The  scapegoat  wrote  to  Burghley:  "I  do  beseech 
your  Lordship  thank  Mr.  Warden  of  the  Fleet  for  his  most 
1  Lansd.  MS.  19,  No.  21.  2  Vol.  23,  Nos.  52-8. 


LONDON  463 

friendly  and  courteous  using  of  me,  for  surely  (I  thank  God 
for  it)  I  am  quiet  and  lack  nothing  that  he  or  his  bedfellow 
are  able  to  do  for  me.  This  a  place  wherein  a  man  may 
quietly  be  acquainted  with  God."  In  his  deposition,  Fleet- 
wood states  that  he  said  to  Signor  Guarras,  while  pro- 
secuting his  search,  "  Sir,  if  I  had  done  my  duty  to  God 
and  to  the  Queen,  I  had  taken  200  here  upon  All  Hallow 
day  last,  and  as  many  more  upon  All  Souls  day  also." 
Fleetwood  concludes  his  "  confession  "  by  saying  that  at 
the  previous  Easter  he  had  sent  Guarras  warning  "  not  to 
suffer  the  Queen's  subjects  to  repair  to  his  Mass,"  so  that 
it  is  abundantly  evident  that  a  long-established  practice 
was  being  interfered  with.  That  same  Easter,  too,  twenty- 
three  people  were  arrested  while  hearing  Mass  on  the  great 
festival  at  John  Pynchin's  house,  celebrated  by  "  Hugh 
Phillips,  late  monk  in  Westminster."  Six  of  these  were 
"  arraigned  and  condemned  according  to  the  statute "  on 
29th  May,  1576.1  These  rigorous  proceedings  naturally 
resulted  in  forcing  some  of  those  who  valued  their  con- 
sciences above  worldly  possessions,  to  seek  refuge  abroad; 
and  at  the  end  of  1576  a  list  was  prepared  containing  "the 
names  of  all  such  as  be  certified  into  the  Exchequer  to  be 
fugitives  over  sea,  contrary  to  the  statute  of  anno  130." 
The  list  is  evidently  very  incomplete,  as  the  London  dio- 
cese provides  but  ten  names.2  From  these  multiplied 
instances  it  is  clear  that  the  eradication  of  Popery  was  still 
far  from  being  accomplished.  Meanwhile,  Sandys  had  been 
transferred  to  York,  and  had  been  succeeded  in  the  bish- 
opric of  London  by  John  Aylmer,  a  man  of  similar  senti- 
ments towards  the  Catholics  as  was  Sandys.  Aylmer  quickly 
cast  about  for  some  new  and  more  effective  method  of 
dealing  with  the  problem.  On  21st  June,  1577,  he  imparted 
to  Secretary  Walsingham  the  result  of  his  cogitations  in  a 
letter  from  which  the  following  passage  may  be  quoted. 
"  My  Lord  of  Canterbury  and  I  have  received  from  divers 
of  our  brethren,  bishops  of  this  realm,  that  the  Papists  do 

1  Lansd.  MS.  23,  No.  59. 

2  P.R.O.  Dom.  Eliz.,  ex,  No.  9,  26th  December,  1576. 


464    TASK  OF  THE  ELIZABETHAN  BISHOPS 

marvellously  increase  both  in  number  and  in  obstinate  with- 
drawing of  themselves  from  the  church  and  service  of  God : 
for  the  remedy  whereof,  the  manner  of  imprisoning  of  them 
which  hath  been  used  heretofore  for  their  punishment,  hath 
not  only  little  availed,  but  also  hath  been  a  means  by 
sparing  of  their  housekeeping,  greatly  to  enrich  them ;  and 
such  as  here  upon  suit  have  been  enlarged,  and  upon  hope 
of  amendment  sent  into  their  countries,  have  drawn  great 
multitudes  of  their  tenants  and  friends  into  the  like  mali- 
cious obstinacy;  wherefore,  with  conference  had  with  the 
rest  of  our  colleagues,  we  have  thought  good  to  forbear  the 
imprisoning  of  the  richer  sort,  and  to  punish  them  by 
round  fines  to  be  imposed  for  contemptuous  refusing  of  re- 
ceiving the  Communion  according  to  our  order  and  com- 
mandments; for  if  we  should  directly  punish  them  for  not 
coming  to  the  church,  they  have  to  allege  that  the  penalty 
being  already  set  down  by  statute  (which  is  \2d.  for  every 
such  offence),  is  not  by  us  to  be  altered  or  aggravated.  This 
manner  of  fining  of  them  will  procure  the  Queen  £1,000  by 
year  to  her  coffers ;  whatsoever  it  do  more,  it  will  weaken 
the  enemy,  and  touch  him  much  nearer  than  any  pain 
heretofore  inflicted  hath  done."1  This  pleasing  little  plan 
evidently  commended  itself  to  the  civil  executive,  and  after 
the  ways  and  means  had  been  sifted,  resulted  in  the  orders 
issued  during  the  autumn  of  that  year  to  all  the  bishops, 
requiring  a  return  of  those  refusing  to  attend  divine  ser- 
service,  together  with  an  estimate  of  each  one's  worth  in 
lands  and  goods.  This  scheme  was  meant  to  strike  Puritan 
and  Papist  alike;  but  since  the  bishops  proposed  to  fine 
only  "the  richer  sort"  it  is  clear  that  only  the  Catholics 
would,  as  a  general  rule,  suffer,  for  the  Puritan  element  was 
so  far  confined  almost  wholly  to  the  lower  orders,  and  had 
hardly  invaded  the  ranks  of  the  county  gentry.  Aylmer 
had,  together  with  his  brethren,  foreseen  all  this,  and  hence 
he  impressed  on  Walsingham  that  "  in  conferring  with  her 
Majesty  about  it,  two  things  are  to  be  observed :  first,  that 
her  Majesty  be  given  to  understand  that  it  is  meant  hereby 
1  P.R.O.  Dom.  Eliz.,  cxiv,  No.  22. 


LONDON  465 

as  well  to  touch  the  one  side  as  the  other  indifferently,  or 
else  you  can  guess  what  will  follow;  secondarily,  if  her 
Majesty  by  importunate  suits  of  courtiers  for  their  friends 
be  easily  drawn  to  forgive  the  forfeitures,  then  our  labour 
will  be  lost,  we  shall  be  brought  into  hatred,  the  enemy 
shall  be  encouraged,  and  all  our  travail  turned  to  a 
mockery.  Therefore  her  Majesty  must  be  made  herein  to 
be  animo  obfirmato,  or  else  nothing  will  be  done."  Aylmer 
himself  was  not  likely  to  be  unduly  harassed  by  scruples, 
either  as  to  the  ends  he  might  suggest  or  as  to  the  methods 
whereby  they  were  to  be  attained.  Thus,  writing  to  Lord 
Burghley,  on  27th  June,  1577,  about  one  Meredith,  whom  he 
had  been  examining,  who  would  "name  none  nor  in  any  wise 
confess  that  he  came  from  Rome,"  he  did  not  hesitate  to 
suggest  that  "  if  he  were  showed  the  rack,  I  think  he  would 
not  be  so  close,  for  he  seemeth  somewhat  timorous."  Further, 
he  thought  "  it  were  not  amiss  to  call  into  close  prison  in 
these  dangerous  times  the  chief  captains  of  the  obstinate 
Papists.  ...  It  is  time  ...  to  use  more  severity  than 
hitherto  hath  been  used,  or  else  we  shall  smart  for  it;  for 
as  sure  as  God  liveth,  they  look  for  invasion,  or  else  they 
would  not  fall  away  as  they  do."1  This  important  letter 
gives  further  insight  into  Aylmer's  methods,  and  is  of 
particular  interest,  since  it  shows  this  ultra-Protestant 
Bishop  advocating  the  very  principle  of  doing  evil  that  good 
may  come,  of  the  end  justifying  the  means,  which  has 
since  been  so  industriously  fathered  on  the  Catholics. 
After  referring  to  Watson,  Feckenham,  and  other  papist 
prisoners,  he  went  on :    "  There  are  three  or  four  persons 

1  Lansd.  MS.  25,  No.  30.  It  maybe  of  interest  to  note  what  Bishop 
Aylmer  reported  as  having  been  found  on  Meredith:  "  His  trinkets 
which  he  carrieth  be  these:  chalice  and  paten  of  tin,  a  painted  crucifix 
to  be  in  the  Mass-book  at  the  time  of  their  consecration,  which  they 
use  to  kiss  at  the  Memento,  a  portasse  daily  used  for  Latin  service, 
whereby  I  gather  he  is  a  priest  and  hath  said  Mass  all  Lancashire 
over,  but  he  confesseth  but  one  place  of  abode  above  named.  Item, 
he  hath  divers  Agnus  Dei,  a  hallowed  candle,  beads  and  other  trinkets. 
It  should  appear  that  he  hath  bestowed  many,  and  these  be  the 
refuses"  {ibid). 

H  H 


466    TASK  OF  THE  ELIZABETHAN  BISHOPS 

here  lurking  in  London  of  a  contrary  pitch  to  Feckenham 
and  the  rest,  and  yet  in  mine  opinion  not  much  less  hurt- 
ful in  hindering  the  unity  and  quietness  of  the  Church  than 
they  be,  namely  Clarke,  Chapman  .  .  .  Field  and  Wil- 
cocks  [strong  Puritans].  .  .  .  These  men  in  mine  opinion 
might  by  toleration  be  profitably  employed  in  Lancashire, 
Staffordshire,  Shropshire,  and  such  other  like  barbarous 
countries  to  draw  the  people  from  Papism  and  gross  ignor- 
ance. And  though  they  went  a  little  too  far,  yet  would  it 
be  less  labour  to  draw  them  back,  than  it  is  now  to  hale 
them  forward."1  What  sort  of  evangelising  is  this!  Two 
days  later,  he  replied  to  Lord  Burghley,  who  had  asked 
him  for  a  post  for  one  Dethick:  "The  officialship  which 
your  Lordship  writeth  for  is  long  since  passed  by  my  pro- 
mise to  ...  a  very  poor  man,  in  respect  only  of  his 
poverty,  as  God  knoweth.  But  rather  than  your  Lordship 
should  think  any  unkindness  in  my  denial  ...  I  will  rather 
revoke  my  promise  and  hazard  my  credit  that  way,  than  I 
will  adventure  your  misliking  .  .  .  therefore,  if  it  be  your 
pleasure  that  I  shall  deal  with  the  other  man,  who,  as 
official,  is  in  possession,  I  will  do  it  effectually,  however  I 
crack  my  credit  in  it."2  It  can  hardly  be  claimed  that 
Aylmer's  sense  of  justice  was  of  a  high  order. 

Bishop  Aylmer's  letter  to  Lord  Burghley  of  27th  June, 
1577,  contained  an  enclosure  he  had  received  from  some 
officials  in  one  of  the  prisons,  who  signed  themselves  "  name- 
less because  we  would  be  blameless,"  and  under  cover  of 
that  anonymity  gave  information  about  many  Catholic 
prisoners  and  of  their  communication  with  the  outer  world ; 
possibly  about  the  same  time  the  Council  received  news  of 
"  divers  bold  disorders  and  riotous  assemblies  of  divers 
Papists  at  Colchester  and  there  near  about  ...  by  20  or 
30  at  a  time  .  .  .  Mass  said  commonly,"  3  affording  evidence 
of  the  wide-spread  existence  of  the  hated  Catholics ;  hence 
Aylmer  might  be  relied  upon  to  use  every  endeavour  to 
get  at  the  facts,  secure  the  names  of  recusants  and  so  pre- 

1  Lansd.  MS.  25,  No.  30.  2  Ibid.,  25,  No.  31,  29th  June,  1577. 

3  P.R.O.  Dom;  Eliz.,  CXX,  No.  26,  27,  ?  1577. 


LONDON  467 

pare  the  way  for  effectually  dealing  with  them  by  fine  and 
imprisonment.  In  support  of  this,  reference  may  be  made  to 
a  document  of  slightly  later  date,  being  extracts  of  letters 
written  by  a  foreigner,  Antonio  Fogaga,  to  correspondents 
abroad,  and  evidently  intercepted.1  Under  date  of  24th 
December,  1575,  he  told  the  Duke  of  Guise:  "the  good 
Catholics  here,  who  do  dearly  love  you,  did  greatly  lament 
when  they  heard  you  were  in  danger  of  your  life,  praying 
continually  to  God  for  your  health,  in  many  Masses  which 
are  daily  said  in  this  town."  To  Don  John  of  Austria  he 
wrote  on  3rd  January,  1577-8,  "My  friend  and  I  met  at 
Mass  in  a  chapel  of  this  city,  where  the  Holy  Sacrament  is 
continually  kept."  A  table  drawn  up  at  the  end  of  1577, 
showing  the  number  of  such  recusants  for  the  whole  of 
England  (1,387)  credits  London  with  99,  and  the  rest  of 
Aylmer's  diocese  with  62,  or  161  in  all.2  That  this  was  not 
accurate  can  be  shown  from  several  other  documents.  Thus, 
a  certificate  of  recusants  in  the  Middle  Temple  names  26 
gentlemen,  differently  tabulated.  Three  "  forbear  to  come 
to  the  church  here  at  the  Temple " ;  three  "  refused  their 
coming  to  their  church  ";  three  others  were  "  fugitives  at 
Louvain";  nine  "  have  been  removed  from  the  fellowship 
for  backwardness  in  religion  and  never  reconciled  them- 
selves " ;  while  eight  had  "  been  removed  from  the  fellow- 
ship for  a  time,  and  after  reconciled,  and  so  continue  as  we 
think."  3  This  list,  it  is  to  be  noted,  contains  the  names  of 
well-known  Catholics,  such  as  Edmund  Plowden,  John 
and  Edward  Yates  of  Buckland,  Vavasour,  Tempest,  etc. 
The  return  for  the  Inner  Temple  contains  58  names,  some 
said  to  be  "  notoriously  suspected  to  be  obstinately  bent  to 
Papistry,"  others,  formerly  "vehemently  suspected,  and 
now  of  what  disposition  they  are  in  religion  we  know  not " ; 
others,  while  vehemently  suspected,  yet  occasionally  at- 
tended church;  others  again,  "publicly  noted  to  be  very 
backward  in  religion."   A  cursory  glance  at  the  names  is 

1  P.R.O.  Dom.  Eliz.,  cxxxvi,  No.  64,  17th  March,  1579-80. 

2  Ibid.,  CXix,  No.  20,  30th  December,  1577. 

3  Ibid.,  CXVIII,  No.  68,  15th  November,  1577. 


468     TASK  OF  THE  ELIZABETHAN  BISHOPS 

enough  to  show  that  it  was  not  Puritanism,  but  Popery,  of 
which  they  were  "  suspected."  They  include  Arden  Waferer, 
Thomas  Copley,  Michael  Hare,  Sampson  Erdeswick, 
Stradlings,  Shelleys,  Gawens,  Yates,  Dymocks,  Tichbornes, 
and  Wisemans.1  Lincoln's  Inn  furnished  a  list  of  5  gentle- 
men expelled  in  1 569  for  recusancy, and  never  yet  reconciled ; 
17  called  before  Bishop  Sandys  and  never  reconciled;  7 
others  similarly  treated,  yet  since  reconciled ;  another  ex- 
pelled in  1576  for  his  recusancy;  and  11  others  ordered  to 
go  to  Communion  and  hitherto  disobedient:  41  in  all,  of 
whom  34  were  at  that  moment  certainly  recusants.2  Gray's 
Inn  could  show  11  "put  out  of  the  house  for  religion  and 
so  remain,"  while  2  others  similarly  treated  had  been  re- 
stored ;  24  are  named  as  "  be  not  known  to  come  to  church  " ; 
13  as  "  come  very  seldom,  and  be  reported  to  be  backward 
in  religion";  while  Jasper  Haywood,  Fr.  Morden,  B.  Bas- 
ford  are  "Jesuits  beyond  the  sea":  53  in  all,  of  whom  51 
may  most  certainly  rank  as  recusants.3  Thus,  out  of  the 
Inns  of  Court  alone,  simply  in  the  ranks  of  the  legal  pro- 
fession, there  were  at  least  161  recusants,  exactly  equal  to 
those  named  in  the  London  diocese  outside  the  limits  of 
the  City.  These  returns  were  made  by  the  officials  of  the 
various  Inns.  In  this  connection  the  reader  is  referred  for 
yet  more  minute  details  to  an  examination  conducted  in 
1 569  at  the  Inns  of  Court,  betraying  a  state  of  things  exactly 
similar  to  what  is  here  shown  as  existing  in  1577.4  Grindal 
suggested,  indeed,  to  Cecil,  that  there  should  be  issued  "a 
commandment  to  the  Benchers  of  every  House:  that  in 
calling  men  to  the  Bench  or  Bar,  they  reject  all  those  that 
are  notoriously  known  or  vehemently  suspected  to  be 
adversaries  to  true  religion,  until  they  have  sufficiently 
purged  themselves,"  etc.  This  letter  is  endorsed:  "For 
restraining  of  ill-affected  in  religion  to  be  called  to  any 
degree  in  Law."  5  The  Bishop's  own  return  is  very  elaborate 

1  P.R.O.  Dom.  Eliz.,  cxvm,  No.  69,  November,  1577. 

2  Ibid.,  cxvm,  No.  70,  November,  1577. 

3  Ibid.,  cxvm,  No.  71,  November,  1577.  *  Cf.  ibid.,  lx,  No.  70. 
5  Lansd.  MS.  11,  No.  55,  20th  May,  1569. 


LONDON  469 

and  contains  the  names  of  poor  persons,  "  of  no  value,"  as 
well  as  those  who  were  likely  to  afford  round  fines.  But  it  is 
not  exhaustive,  since  it  names  but  34  of  London's  91  parishes. 
In  London  itself, 94  recusants  at  least  are  enumerated;  but 
as  "  household  "  not  infrequently  occurs,  the  exact  number 
must  remain  indeterminate.  Outside  London  81  names 
appear,  amongst  them  "  the  wife  of  Doctor  Story  late 
executed  at  Tyburn — nothing  worth  " ;  "  the  wife  of  William 
Bird,  one  of  the  gentlemen  of  her  Majesty's  Chapel  " — this 
is  the  famous  musician  and  composer.1  The  Bishop's  list 
thus  contains  175  names  at  least,  probably  representing 
many  more  individual  recusants,  and  the  diocese  altogether 
shows  a  minimum  of  336  recusants. 

Not  only  Aylmer,  but  the  Privy  Council  as  well,  made 
efforts  to  secure  the  conformity  of  recusants.  Thus,  while 
the  Council  were  accompanying  the  Queen  on  one  of  her 
periodical  progresses,  we  find  that  in  Essex  during  the 
spring  or  summer  of  1578,  several  Papists  appeared  before 
them  and  were  variously  dealt  with:  some  to  confer  with 
preachers,  and  if  refractory,  to  be  committed  to  gaol ;  one 
who  conformed  on  the  spot  was  "dismissed  with  favour"; 
others  merely  conformed ;  others  are  stated  to  "  come  to 
the  church" — for  what  that  outward  show  was  worth;  Sir 
Henry  Tyrrell  was,  fortunately  for  himself,  sick;  while  a 
few,  though  summoned,  failed  to  appear.2  The  next  evidence 
of  personal  activity  on  Bishop  Aylmer's  part  against 
Catholics  comes  at  the  close  of  1579,  when  he  succeeded 
in  tracking  a  printing  press  which  he,  of  course,  seized. 
His  predecessor,  Sandys,  met  with  a  like  piece  of  good 
fortune  in  1573,  but  as  it  was  a  Puritan  office  that  was 
raided,  this  narrative  is  not  concerned  with  the  event.3  But 
Aylmer  was  fortunate  in  securing  Carter,  "a  very  lewd  fellow, 
who  hath  been  divers  times  before  in  prison  for  printing  of 
lewd  pamphlets.    But  now  in  search  of  his  house,  amongst 

1  P.R.O.  Dom.  Eliz.,  cxvm,  No.  73,  November,  1577. 
3  Cotton  MS.  Titus  B.  in,  No.  21,  f.  60,  endorsed,  "1578.   Papists 
in  Essex  dealt  withal  by  my  Ld.  in  this  progress." 
3  Cf.  Lansd.  MS.  17,  No.  45  (a),  28th  August,  1573. 


470    TASK  OF  THE  ELIZABETHAN  BISHOPS 

other  naughty  papistical  books,  we  have  found  one  written 
in  French  entitled  The  Innocency  of  the  Scottish  Queen,  a 
very  dangerous  book,  wherein  he  calleth  her  the  heir  appar- 
ent of  this  Crown  .  .  .  [he]  is  now  near  you  in  the  Gate- 
house. ...  I  can  get  nothing  of  him,  for  he  did  deny  to 
answer  upon  his  oath."  1  This  William  Carter  finally  suf- 
fered death  at  Tyburn  as  a  traitor,  in  1584,  his  alleged 
offence  being  the  publication  of  A  Treatise  of  Schism? 
While  Aylmer  was  thus  busy  in  trying  to  make  Papists 
conformable,  he  was  himself  being  harried  almost  as  severely 
as  his  own  victims.  And  he  turned  upon  his  persecutor, 
Lord  Burghley,  in  characteristic  fashion.  "  To  be  plain 
with  your  Lordship,"  he  wrote, "  you  are  the  man  that  doth 
most  discourage  me,  ...  in  that,  by  your  words  and 
countenances  my  government  is  hindered.  For  when  such 
words  shall  pass  from  you,  that  such  and  such  things  be 
not  of  the  substance  of  religion,  that  the  ecclesiastical 
jurisdiction  (which  you  yourself  by  statute  have  confirmed) 
is  mere  papal,  that  you  would  such  and  such  should  preach 
which  are  disturbers,  &c,  it  cannot  be,  my  Lord,  but  three 
words  from  your  mouth  hujus  generis,  shall  more  embolden 
them  and  hinder  our  labours,  than  our  toil  and  moil  shall 
in  many  years  be  able  to  help  and  save.  These  are  the 
things,  my  Lord,  that  do  discourage  me  and  make  me  weary, 
that  on  the  one  side  we  shall  be  bawled  on  by  them  and 
not  backed  nor  countenanced  by  such  great  magistrates  as 
you  are  ...  it  must  needs  make  us  desperate,  as  by  my 
writing  you  may  see."3  This  same  year,  1579,  in  a  general 
list  of  recusants  of  England,  drawn  up  with  a  view  to  assess- 
ment, on  a  basis  of  a  minimum  of  £\o  in  land  and  £200  in 
goods,  London  diocese  furnished  20  names.4  Finally,  a  re- 
markable "  Catalogue  of  Papists  remaining  confined  in 
different  prisons  in  England  "  containing  reference  to  more 
than  100  persons,  shows  that  in  London  there  were  then 

1  Lansd.  MS.  28,  No.  81,  30th  December,  1579. 

2  Gillow,  Bibliogr.  Diet,  of  Engl.  Cat/is.,  i,  414. 

3  26th  May,  1579;  Lansd.  MS.  28,  No.  72. 

4  P.R.O.  Dom.  Eliz.,  cxlii,  No.  33. 


CANTERBURY  471 

(1579)111  durance  49  Catholics,  thus  distributed  amongst  the 
various  prisons:  2  in  the  Tower,  7  in  the  Fleet,  17  in  the 
Marshalsea,  3  in  the  White  Lion,  and  5  each  in  the  King's 
Bench,  the  Gatehouse,  Newgate,  and  the  Counter.1 

The  last  diocese  to  be  considered  is  the  primatial  See  of 
Canterbury.  This  brings  us  into  contact  with  Matthew 
Parker,  and  we  at  once  pass  into  a  purer  and  sweeter 
atmosphere  than  has  hitherto  surrounded  us.  As  he  was 
the  first  of  the  line  of  Elizabethan  prelates,  so  he  was  un- 
doubtedly the  most  distinguished,  both  for  his  learning  and 
statesmanship,  and  for  his  own  personal  qualities.  His 
nature  was  more  genial,  sober,  and  gentle  than  that  of  his 
colleagues:  he  always  stands  forth  as  a  restraining  influence 
over  their  more  fiery  temperaments ;  and  it  may  be  safely 
said  that  he  misliked  much  of  what  the  necessities  of  the 
times  forced  upon  him:  that,  on  the  whole,  he  was  averse 
to  the  methods  of  compulsion  or  persecution  so  dear  to  the 
other  bishops,  being  in  this  distinctly  ahead  of  the  times  in 
which  he  lived.  The  pity  is  that  his  saner  counsels  were 
unable  to  prevail  more  than  they  actually  did,  for  they 
would  have  made  for  toleration  and  peace. 

Parker's  official  career  as  Archbishop  of  Canterbury  can 
best  be  viewed  from  two  standpoints;  as  superintendent  of 
his  own  See,  and  as  Primate  of  All  England.  In  the  latter 
capacity  only  can  we  study  the  man  effectively;  but  for 
present  purposes  it  must  suffice  to  follow  his  relations  with 
his  own  diocese,  and  leave  the  larger  issues  for  a  more 
general  survey  of  the  policy  of  the  country.  In  other  words, 
he  is  here  to  be  considered  merely  as  a  bishop,  not  as  a 
primate  or  as  a  statesman. 

In  pursuance  of  this  limitation,  the  first  document  to  be 
consulted  is,  of  course,  the  return  prepared  by  him  of  the 
state  of  Canterbury  diocese,  made  in  1563  for  the  informa- 
tion of  the  Privy  Council.  This  certificate  gives  a  total  of 
276  churches  and  chapels,  being  19  in  excess  of  the"  Douay 
Diaries"  estimate  of  257.  The  households  served  by  those 
churches  were  10,948  in  number,  giving  an  estimated 
1  Lansd.  MS.  28,  No.  97. 


472     TASK  OF  THE  ELIZABETHAN  BISHOPS 

population,  therefore,  for  the  greater  part  of  Kent,  of  54,740. 
No  information  is  afforded  as  to  the  number  of  livings  then 
vacant,1  but  in  a  return  of  vacant  livings  made  about  1565, 
the  diocese  of  Canterbury  figures  as  showing  24.2 

As  Archbishop  Parker  had  declared  his  dislike  for  in- 
quisitorial methods  when  forwarding  certificates  about 
Justices  of  the  Peace  for  the  dioceses  of  Oxford  and  Llan- 
daff,  so  the  more  emphatically  did  he  express  his  dissent 
when  obeying  the  Council's  behests  in  regard  to  his  own 
immediate  jurisdiction.  He  simply  forwarded  the  names 
of  45  knights  and  gentlemen  without  in  any  way  labelling 
them  or  their  opinions,  with  the  following  curt  remarks: 
"  These  persons  in  schedule  inserted  may  well  continue  to 
serve,  with  three  others  lastly  named,  of  all  which  persons, 
though  not  of  like  zeal  in  religion,  yet  such  as  I  must  say 
that  the  furthest  off  in  favourable  affection  toward  the  state 
of  religion,  be  outwardly  men  conformable,  and  not  charge- 
able to  my  knowledge  of  any  great  extremities  uttered  by 
them  in  afflicting  the  honest  and  godly,  or  in  maintaining 
the  perverse  and  ungodly,  as  your  letters  do  speak."  3  It  is 
clear  that  Parker  did  not  place  much  reliance  on  mere  out- 
ward conformity,  and  that  he  was  suspicious  of  those  who 
thus  bartered  conscience  for  place.  The  most  important 
information  about  the  diocese  that  is  extant  is  contained 
in  a  minute  statistical  account  of  a  visitation  made  in  1569.4 
Thus,  in  the  Archbishop's  private  chapel,  prayers  were  read 
daily,  Communion  was  celebrated  four  times  a  year,  and 
there  were  frequent  sermons,  but  "  neither  Drs.  Thirlby  and 
Boxall  nor  their  servants  come  to  Communion."  Since 
1st  March,  1564-5,  i.e.,  during  four  or  five  years,  250 
preachers  had  been  admitted  after  subscribing  to  the  Articles 
of  religion.  The  select  preachers  of  the  diocese  are  named, 
together  with  the  places  where,  and  how  often,  they  had 
preached,  since  Michaelmas,  1 568.    There  follows  an  elabor- 

1  Harl.  MS.  594,  No.  8,  f.  63,  9th  July,  1563. 

2  P.R.O.  Dom.  Eliz.,  Add.,  XII,  No.  108. 

3  Camden  Miscellany,  vol.  ix;  Bishops'  Letters,  1564,  pp.  57-9. 

4  P.R.O.  Dom.  Eliz.,  LX,  No.  71. 


CANTERBURY  473 

ate  table,  giving  the  deaneries,  with  the  number  of  churches, 
which  there  appear  to  be  294;  the  preachers;  the  churches 
then  vacant,  11  in  all,  but  2  only  were  entirely  unserved; 
the  patrons  of  livings ;  how  the  people  attended  Common 
Prayer;  how  they  attended  Communion;  the  number  of 
families,  of  communicants,  and  of  children  confirmed  that 
year.  The  attendance  at  Prayers  is  mostly  entered  as 
"  raro";  but  the  communicants  are  given  as  43,097  out  of 
11,074  families  or  a  population  averaging  55,370,  which 
seems  abnormally  high.  The  number  of  children  confirmed 
was  1,695.  Nine  people  are  mentioned  as  not  having  com- 
municated for  ten  years,  i.e.,  since  the  Queen's  accession ; 
another  for  two  years,  and  these  all  stood  excommunicated 
in  consequence.  To  these  may  be  added  a  further  list  of 
recalcitrants  living  in  archiepiscopal  peculiars.  Some  are 
said  specifically  to  be  Puritans.  Of  the  rest,  45  in  number, 
many  are  recognisably  Catholics,  and  the  others  were  prob- 
ably so.  It  may  possibly  throw  some  light  on  the  vacancies 
in  livings  to  refer  to  a  list  of  fugitives  beyond  seas,  drawn 
up  in  1576,  wherein  Kent  is  shown  to  have  supplied  two  to 
the  category,  both  "clerks."  * 

It  fell  to  Parker's  successor,  Edmund  Grindal,  to  prepare 
the  great  return  called  for  in  1577.  This  he  did  through  the 
Justices  of  Kent,  who  certified  the  Council  of  twenty-five 
recusants  of  means.2  This  number  had  dwindled  to  thir- 
teen, when  the  general  list  for  England  was  made  out  in 

I579-3 

Archbishop  Parker,  from  the  very  position  he  occupied, 
was  burthened  with  the  task  of  seeing  that  the  principles 
of  the  Reformation  were  complied  with,  and  it  fell  to  his 
lot  in  the  pursuance  of  his  duty  to  bring  to  his  brother 
bishops  any  backslidings  on  their  part  in  this  respect. 
Instances  have  already  been  quoted,  and  need  not  be  re- 
ferred to  again  in  this  place.    His  own  watchfulness  in  the 

1  P.R.O.  Dom.  Eliz.,  ex,  No.  9,  26th  December,  1576. 

2  Ibid.,  CXVll,  No.  5  and  5  i,  21st  October,  1577,  and  Abp.  Grindal's 
covering  letter — of  no  consequence  (ibid.,  No.  9,  24th  October,  1577). 

3  Ibid.,  cxlii,  No.  33. 


474     TASK  OF  THE  ELIZABETHAN  BISHOPS 

case  of  the  See  he  personally  ruled  may  be  seen  in  the 
Injunctions  he  issued  in  1 563,  at  his  visitation.  The  Articles 
of  Enquiry  include  the  following:  "  Whether  your  altars  be 
taken  down  .  .  .  whether  images  and  all  other  monuments 
of  idolatry  and  superstition  be  destroyed  and  abolished  .  .  . 
whether  the  rood  loft  be  pulled  down  .  .  .  whether  you  do 
hear  or  know  any  that  doth  use  to  say  or  hear  the  private 
Mass,  or  do  use  any  other  service  than  is  prescribed  by  the 
laws  of  this  realm."  x  As  far,  therefore,  as  in  him  lay,  it  is 
clear  that  he  was  adopting  the  means  then  thought  suitable 
for  stamping  out  the  old  Creed  and  anything  that  might 
be  suggestive  or  reminiscent  of  it. 

1  Second  Report  of  Ritual  Commission,  1868,  App.  E,  p.  403.  The 
Articles  of  1569,  which  are  very  similar,  may  be  seen  in  Wilkins,  Con- 
cilia, iv,  p.  257. 


CHAPTER  XI 

THE  RISING  OF  THE  NORTH,  I  569 

IN  order  adequately  to  understand  the  most  serious 
domestic  attempt  made  against  Elizabeth's  authority, 
it  will  be  necessary  to  make  a  rapid  survey  of  the  causes 
which  led  up  to  the  Rebellion  of  the  Northern  Earls.  It 
has  been  customary  to  consider  this  as  mainly  a  rising 
depending  for  success  upon  religious  motives.  This  is  only 
partly  true.  Religion  was  a  strong  incentive,  but  it  was 
permeated  by  others,  dynastic  and  personal. 

Henry  VII's  daughter  Mary  married  James  IV  of  Scot- 
land. Their  son,  James  V,  by  his  marriage  with  Mary  of 
Guise,  had  a  daughter  Mary,  who  succeeded  her  father 
when  she  was  but  a  few  hours  old.  This  child  grew  up  to 
be  the  remarkable  woman  known  to  history  as  Mary, 
Queen  of  Scots,  the  extraordinary  vicissitudes  of  whose 
life,  darkened  by  a  protracted  and  cruel  captivity,  and  end- 
ing so  tragically  on  the  scaffold,  have  been  the  subject  of 
the  deep  and  romantic  interest  of  all  succeeding  ages.  It 
will  be  seen  that  her  descent  from  Henry  VII  made  her  a 
formidable  rival  to  Elizabeth  as  a  claimant  for  the  English 
throne,  if  the  law  of  primogeniture  is  accepted  as  regulating 
matters  of  succession.  Henry  VIII  left  three  children. 
Edward,  the  son  of  Jane  Seymour,  born  in  lawful  wedlock, 
had  naturally  been  his  father's  immediate  successor.  Then 
Mary,  the  daughter  of  the  much  injured  Catherine  of 
Aragon,  had  mounted  the  throne.  If  her  claim  had  at  one 
time  been  cast  into  doubt  through  the  violent  passions  of 
her  father,  they  had  been  recognised  once  more  before  his 
death  upon  her  reconciliation  with  him  after  Anne  Boleyn's 
475 


476  THE  RISING  OF  THE  NORTH 

execution;  and  in  1544  she  had  been  placed  by  Act  of 
Parliament  next  in  succession  to  the  throne  after  Prince 
Edward  and  his  heirs,  and  any  possible  sons  by  Catherine 
Parr  or  any  other  wife  succeeding  her.  But  the  case  of 
Anne  Boleyn's  child,  Elizabeth,  was  very  different.  When 
Anne  Boleyn  was  declared  guilty  of  adultery  and  incest  in 
May,  1536,  Cranmer,  who  had  previously  blessed  her  union 
with  Henry,  now  subserviently  declared  that  marriage,  the 
work  of  his  own  hands,  to  be  null  and  void,  and  con- 
sequently that  Elizabeth  was  illegitimate.  An  Act  of  Parlia- 
ment had  declared  both  Mary  and  Elizabeth  to  be  illegiti- 
mate, so  that  both  in  civil  and  in  ecclesiastical  law  Elizabeth 
was  removed  from  the  succession.  Before  Henry  died,  he  had 
provided  by  statute  that  Elizabeth  should  stand  next  after 
Mary  in  the  succession,  in  other  words  Parliament  enacted 
that  Henry  might  leave  the  Crown  to  whom  he  would.  By 
statute,  therefore,  Elizabeth  stood  once  more  lawfully  in 
the  succession.  When  Mary  was  on  the  throne,  she  was 
careful  to  have  annulled  all  Acts  reflecting  on  her  mother's 
honour  and  her  own  legitimacy.  But  Elizabeth  did  not 
follow  her  sister's  example,  and,  perhaps  wisely,  refused  to 
reopen  the  question  of  her  mother's  marriage.  Eccle- 
siastically, therefore,  Elizabeth  remained  a  bastard.  On 
Mary's  death,  Nicholas  Heath,  Archbishop  of  York  and 
Chancellor  of  England,  relying  solely  upon  the  statute, 
proclaimed  Elizabeth  as  lawful  Queen  of  England,  and  she 
was  so  accepted  by  the  bulk  of  the  nation.  But  this  accept- 
ance of  one  ecclesiastically  a  bastard  upset  the  theory  of 
the  divine  right  of  kings  descending  in  legitimate  proces- 
sion of  primogeniture,  dear  to  her  successor,  James,  son  of 
the  unfortunate  Mary,  Queen  of  Scots. 

As  neither  Edward  VI  nor  Mary  left  direct  heirs,  those 
who  refused  for  one  reason  or  another  to  accept  the  right 
of  a  king  or  his  Parliament  to  dispose  of  a  Crown  as  they 
would,  naturally  looked  for  the  nearest  representative 
according  to  primogeniture.  This  was  undoubtedly  Mary, 
the  youthful  Queen  of  Scots.  At  the  date  of  the  death  of 
Mary  of  England  and  the  accession  of  Elizabeth,  Mary  of 


THE  RISING  OF  THE  NORTH  477 

Scotland  was  the  bride  of  Francis,  the  Dauphin  of  France. 
She,  urged  to  make  her  claim  to  the  English  throne,  assumed 
the  title  of  Queen,  and  began  to  use  the  English  royal 
arms — an  unfortunate  step,  which  excited  the  implacable 
resentment  of  Elizabeth.  Francis  died  at  the  end  of  1560, 
and  Mary,  a  widow  at  eighteen,  returned  to  Scotland. 
Here,  in  1565,  she  married  Henry  Stewart,  Lord  Darnley, 
eldest  son  of  the  Earl  of  Lennox,  who,  through  his  mother, 
was,  after  Mary,  the  nearest  in  succession  to  the  throne  of 
England.  The  fruit  of  that  union  was  James,  who,  on 
Elizabeth's  death,  united  the  Crowns  of  England  and  Scot- 
land. Early  in  1567  Darnley  was  murdered,  and,  it  is  sup- 
posed by  some,  with  his  wife's  connivance.  Bothwell,  the 
chief  conspirator  against  Darnley,  carried  Mary  off  by  force 
and  married  her.  This  audacious  proceeding  was  the  cause 
of  a  rising,  resulting  in  Mary's  capture  by  the  rebels,  and 
her  imprisonment  in  Lochleven  Castle.  Elizabeth's  share 
in  fomenting  these  troubles  is  known,  but  need  not  here  be 
insisted  upon.  Mary  escaped  from  Lochleven  in  1568,  when 
a  body  of  nobles  rallied  toiher  standard,  only  to  be  defeated 
at  Langside.  Mary  fled  from  the  field,  and,  in  spite  of  the 
remonstrances  of  her  friends,  resolved  to  throw  herself  on 
Elizabeth's  generosity  and  protection,  and  therefore  crossed 
into  England.  Three  courses  were  open  to  Elizabeth,  now 
that  she  had  her  rival  in  her  power.  She  might  have 
restored  Mary  to  her  throne,  or  have  granted  her  an  asylum 
in  England,  or  have  permitted  her  to  retire  to  France. 
But  in  the  opinion  of  her  advisers,  all  these  three  courses 
were  likely  to  be  a  danger  and  a  menace  to  herself  and  her 
throne.  In  violation  both  of  justice  and  humanity,  but  in 
keeping  with  her  usual  policy  of  selfishness  and  dilatori- 
ness,  she  refused  to  make  any  definite  decision,  merely 
detaining  the  Scottish  Queen  as  a  prisoner,  the  pretext  for 
so  doing  being  the  need  for  an  enquiry  into  Mary's  com- 
plicity in  Darnley's  murder.  Though  the  question  was 
entirely  outside  Elizabeth's  jurisdiction,  Mary  was  induced 
to  submit  her  cause  to  Elizabeth's  arbitration.  Although 
an  investigation,  protracted  through    many  months,  was 


478  THE  RISING  OF  THE  NORTH 

opened,  no  definite  decision  was  arrived  at,  giving  Eliza- 
beth a  further  pretext  for  continuing  to  keep  her  rival  in 
captivity.  This  procedure  aroused  deep  resentment.  Had 
Elizabeth  followed  in  her  sister's  footsteps  instead  of  throw- 
ing in  her  lot  with  the  Reformers,  it  may  be  doubted  if 
any  attempt  would  have  been  made  against  her  throne. 
But  as  has  been  seen,  she  repudiated  the  papal  Supremacy, 
established  a  national  Church  with  herself  as  its  Head, 
and  by  severe  penal  enactments  tried  to  stamp  out  the 
ancient  worship.  So  long  as  men  were  buoyed  up  with  the 
hope  that  marriage  or  some  other  event  would  change 
Elizabeth's  sentiments,  they  remained  quiet.  But  when  she 
was  firmly  fixed  on  her  throne;  when,  above  all,  her  chief 
rival  was  in  her  power;  then  the  more  fiery  spirits  felt  that 
the  time  for  waiting  was  past,  and  that  a  move  must  be 
made.  But  many  conflicting  policies  stood  in  the  way  of 
each  other.  There  were  foreign  ambitions  to  be  considered, 
and  their  possible  effect  on  English  ascendancy.  There 
was  the  traditional  enmity  between  England  and  France 
on  one  side,  and  England  and  Scotland  on  the  other. 
Many  men,  therefore,  who  recognised  Mary  of  Scotland  as 
lawfully  entitled  to  the  English  Crown,  preferred  to  sup- 
port the  more  doubtful  claims  of  Elizabeth  rather  than 
subject  their  country  to  the  domination  of  France,  or  Scot- 
land, or  both.  Philip  II,  King  of  Spain  and  the  Nether- 
lands, and  Consort  of  Mary  of  England,  naturally  favoured 
Elizabeth,  so  as  to  use  England  as  a  foil  against  France, 
his  enemy  in  the  Low  Countries.  At  first  he  had  even 
entertained  the  idea  of  a  marriage  between  himself  and 
Elizabeth  in  furtherance  of  this  policy.  It  will  be  seen, 
therefore,  that  England  was  averse  just  then  to  any  foreign 
alliance  that  by  throwing  the  country  into  the  arms  of  one 
of  the  contending  continental  parties,  would  place  it  in 
subjection  to  that  one,  and  in  a  state  of  enmity  with  the 
other.  For  that  reason  too,  a  large  section  would  have 
welcomed  an  alliance  with  one  of  the  Protestant  German 
states,  or  with  Sweden.  When,  however,  one  suitor  after 
another  was  rejected,  and  the  nation  began  to  realise  that 


THE  RISING  OF  THE  NORTH  479 

Elizabeth  meant  to  marry  neither  a  foreigner  nor  one  of 
her  own  subjects,  the  question  of  the  succession  began  to 
agitate  men's  minds,  and  added  fuel  to  the  fires  of  religious 
animosity.  For  Mary,  Queen  of  Scots,  if  not  accepted  as 
reigning  sovereign,  was  at  least  next  heir,  and  adherents  of 
the  old  Faith  rested  their  hopes  of  a  reversal  of  the  exist- 
ing persecution  of  their  creed  on  Mary's  ultimate  succes- 
sion, or  at  least  on  that  of  her  son  James.  For  the  same 
reason,  Cecil  and  those  whose  interest  it  was  to  maintain 
the  Reformation,  looked  with  dread  on  the  possible  advent 
of  Mary  to  the  throne.  Elizabeth's  health  had  once  or 
twice  given  grave  cause  for  alarm,  and  the  attack  of  small- 
pox which  she  had  in  October,  1562,  had  made  all  men 
hope,  or  fear,  for  her  death.  Hence,  whatever  their  religious 
tendencies,  all  Englishmen  were  united  in  trying  to  get 
from  their  Queen  some  indication  of  her  wishes,  some  settle- 
ment that  would  let  them  know  where  they  stood.  But 
that  was  just  what  Elizabeth  would  not  do.  The  uncer- 
tainty thus  engendered  increased  her  control  of  her  ministers 
and  subjects;  and,  though  doubtless,  had  she  followed  her 
personal  inclinations,  she  would  have  associated  with  her- 
self on  her  throne  the  Earl  of  Leicester,  she  consulted  best 
for  her  dominant  influence  by  dallying  with  those  who 
wished  her  to  marry,  at  the  same  time  refusing  to  declare 
anyone  her  heir. 

Another  solution  that  presented  itself  to  some  of  those 
tired  of  waiting  both  for  the  dynastic  and  the  religious 
settlement  was  to  depose  Elizabeth,  and  replace  her  by 
Mary;  and  in  order  to  avoid  continental  complications, 
they  further  proposed  to  marry  Mary  to  an  English  noble- 
man. This  was  the  situation  during  the  latter  half  of  1568 
when  Mary  was  Elizabeth's  prisoner  at  Tutbury. 

During  the  early  years  of  Elizabeth's  reign,  the  Spanish 
ambassador  accredited  to  the  Court  of  St.  James's  was  Don 
Guzman  de  Silva,  who  had  taken  the  Bishop  of  Avila's 
place  on  that  prelate's  death  in  1563.  Don  Guzman  had 
maintained  the  most  friendly  personal  relations  with  Eliza- 
beth, who  apparently  sincerely  regretted  his  recall.    He  was 


48o  THE  RISING  OF  THE  NORTH 

succeeded  in  his  delicate  office  by  Don  Guerau  de  Spes,  a 
fiery,  tactless  man,  who,  it  would  seem,  had  been  selected 
for  the  post  with  a  special  view  to  render  the  situation, 
between  England  and  Spain,  as  acute  as  possible.  No  sooner 
had  he  set  foot  in  England  than  he  began  plotting  with  the 
disaffected,  that  is,  with  the  partisans  of  Mary,  Queen  of 
Scots,  and  with  the  Catholics.  The  English  nobleman  who 
was  suggested  as  Mary's  possible  husband  was  the  Duke  of 
Norfolk,  who,  though  not  then  a  Catholic,  it  was  thought 
might  easily  be  persuaded  to  become  one.  In  fact,  some 
thought  he  was  one.  Shortly  after  taking  up  his  residence 
in  London,  Don  Guerau  de  Spes  wrote  to  his  royal  master 
as  follows:  "  I  enclose  the  demands  made  by  the  commis- 
sioners in  York.  Two  of  each  party  have  arrived  here  to 
consult  with  this  Queen  who  is  at  Hampton  Court.  I  am  of 
opinion  that  this  would  be  a  good  opportunity  of  handling 
Scotch  affairs  successfully,  and  restoring  this  country  to  the 
Catholic  religion,  and  if  the  Duke  were  out  of  his  present 
anxiety  and  your  Majesty  wished,  it  could  be  discussed."  1 
He  was  himself  sanguine  of  the  success  of  a  rising  against 
Elizabeth,  and  wrote  on  6th  November  to  Philip:  "it  ap- 
pears as  if  the  time  was  approaching  when  this  country  may 
be  made  to  return  to  the  Catholic  Church,  the  Queen  being 
in  such  straits  and  short  of  money.  I  have  already  informed 
your  Majesty  of  the  offer  made  by  Viscount  Montagu's 
brother-in-law  [either  Thomas,  Lord  Dacre,  or  Leonard 
Dacre]  on  condition  that  they  may  hope  for  protection  from 
your  Majesty.  He  still  presses  it,  and  I  await  your  orders." 2 
Later,  he  suggested  that  pressure  might  be  brought  to  bear 
on  Elizabeth,  not  by  force  of  arms,  but  by  a  commercial 
war:  "Whenever  Flemish  matters  are  calm,  and  your 
Majesty  and  the  French  king  choose  to  stop  English  com- 
merce, without  even  drawing  the  sword,  they  will  be  obliged 
to  adopt  the  Catholic  religion." 3  At  the  same  time  he  sent 
the  Spanish  monarch  a  "sketch"  of  an  address  he  might 

1  Spanish  State  Papers,  ii,  p.  81,  No.  57,  30th  October,  1568. 

2  Ibid.,  p.  83,  No.  60. 

3  Ibid.,  p.  85,  No.  62,  1 2th  December,  1568. 


THE  RISING  OF  THE  NORTH  481 

make  to  Queen  Elizabeth,  which  says  more  for  the  fieriness 
of  his  zeal  than  for  his  wisdom  and  discretion.  Nevertheless 
this  draft  contains  some  home-truths  as  to  the  state  of  re- 
ligion in  England  at  that  time.  "  No  maze  has  so  many 
paths  as  the  new  religion  has  conflicting  sects,"  he  says ;  but 
he  admitted  that  "in  all  that  had  passed,  the  moderation 
shown  by  [Elizabeth]  has  been  conspicuous,  in  sustaining 
the  churches  and  preserving  to  the  clergy  their  ecclesiastical 
vestments,  as  well  as  maintaining  a  large  portion  of  the 
Catholic  observances,  the  veneration  on  the  altar  of  the 
Cross  on  which  our  Lord  died,  and  the  checking  of  the  mad 
and  furious  insolence  of  those  unhappy  men,  vulgarly  called 
ministers,  but  who  really  are  coarse  clowns  and  charlatans."  ' 

The  notion  of  a  commercial  war  took  Don  Guerau's 
fancy,  and  he  returned  to  its  prospects  in  a  later  despatch. 
"  In  the  meanwhile,  many  means  will  be  found  to  bring  this 
country  to  its  senses  and  convert  it  to  the  Catholic  Faith. 
Those  who  have  spoken  to  me  about  a  rising  for  the  Queen 
of  Scots,  will  not  fail  to  return  to  the  subject,  and  I  will 
inform  the  Duke  [of  Alba]  as  ordered  by  your  Majesty.  .  .  . 
The  Earl  of  Northumberland  came,  disguised,  to  see  me  at 
4  o'clock  in  the  morning,  and  is  ready  to  serve  your 
Majesty."  He  likewise  described  Cecil  in  the  following 
words:  "These  heretic  knaves  of  the  Council  are  going 
headlong  to  perdition,  incited  by  Cecil,  who  is  indescribably 
crazy  in  his  zeal  for  heresy." 2 

The  dependence  on  Philip's  help  here  referred  to  is  not 
so  despicable  as  it  appears  on  the  surface,  if  it  be  remem- 
bered that  for  about  four  years  he  had  been,  jointly  with 
Mary,  Sovereign  of  England.  Philip  was  smitten  by  the  sug- 
gestion mooted  by  his  ambassador,  though  with  his  usual 
caution,  he  felt  his  way  very  slowly.  Writing  to  the  Duke 
of  Alba,  his  Lieutenant  in  the  Low  Countries,  he  said:  "Don 
Guerau  points  out  .  .  .  the  good  opportunity  which  now 
presents  itself  to  remedy  religious  affairs  in  that  country  by 
deposing  the  present  Queen  and  giving  the  Crown  to  the 

1  Spanish  State  Papers,  ii,  p.  85,  No.  63. 

2  Ibid.,  p.  95,  No.  70,  8th  January,  1568-9. 

I  I 


482  THE  RISING  OF  THE  NORTH 

Queen  of  Scots,  who  would  immediately  be  joined  by  all 
the  Catholics.  It  will  be  well  for  you  to  enquire  what 
foundation  there  is  for  this,  and  what  success  would  prob- 
ably attend  such  a  design ;  as,  if  there  is  anything  in  it,  I 
should  be  glad  to  carry  it  out;  as  it  appears  to  me  that, 
after  my  special  obligation  to  maintain  my  own  States  in 
our  holy  Faith,  I  am  bound  to  make  every  effort  in  order 
to  restore  and  preserve  it  in  England  as  in  former  times.  If 
there  is  any  foundation  for  the  suggestion,  no  time  more 
opportune  than  the  present  could  be  found  for  carrying  it 
out;  and,  in  order  not  to  miss  it,  I  have  thought  well  to  refer 
it  to  you.  If  you  think  the  chance  will  be  lost  by  again 
waiting  to  consult  me,  you  may  at  once  take  the  steps  you 
may  consider  advisable  in  conformity  with  this  my  desire 
and  intention,  which  would  certainly  give  me  great  plea- 
sure." l 

With  the  encouragement  afforded  by  this  most  important 
document,  of  the  contents  of  which  he  could  not  have  been 
ignorant,  Don  Guerau  de  Spes  proceeded  with  his  negocia- 
tions  with  Mary's  partisans,  as  the  two  following  extracts 
show.  He  informed  the  Duke  of  Alba  that  "  the  Duke  of 
Norfolk  and  the  Earl  of  Arundel  .  .  .  say  that  they  will  re- 
turn to  the  Catholic  religion,  and  that  they  think  a  better 
opportunity  never  existed  than  now.  Although  Cecil  thinks 
he  has  them  under  his  heel,  he  will  find  few  or  none  of  them 
stand  by  him.  I  have  encouraged  them.  .  .  .  Cecil  in  the 
meanwhile  is  bravely  harrying  the  Catholics,  imprisoning 
many,  for  nearly  all  the  prisons  are  full ";  and  referring  to 
his  own  extraordinary  detention  within  his  own  house  by 
Elizabeth's  orders,  he  said  "  [Norfolk  and  Arundel]  tell  me 
not  to  distress  myself  about  my  detention,  and  that  it  was 
ordered  to  prevent  any  Catholic  from  communicating  with 
me."  2 

The  Government,  always  well  informed  through  its  spies, 
knew  that  some  plot  was  afoot,  though  it  had  not  as  yet 
learnt  its  precise  details ;  hence  the  activity  in  putting  the 

1  Spanish  State  Papers,  ii,  p.  109,  No.  80,  18th  February,  1568-9. 

2  Ibid.,  p.  in,  No.  82,  29th  February,  1568-9. 


THE  RISING  OF  THE  NORTH  483 

leading  Catholics  in  a  position  to  neutralise  any  harm  they 
might  be  contemplating.  But  Don  Guerau  said:  "Many 
Catholics  write  letters  secretly  to  me  saying  that  the  moment 
they  see  your  Majesty's  standards  raised  in  this  country, 
they  will  all  rise  to  serve  you.  ...  If  your  Majesty  com- 
mands measures  to  be  taken  ...  I  do  not  think  it  will  be 
difficult  to  bring  them  [the  Reformers]  to  subjection,  or,  at 
least,  to  change  the  Government  and  religion."  1 

It  is  of  importance  to  realise  the  situation  as  here  de- 
veloped :  on  the  one  hand  the  eagerness  of  the  Catholics  to 
rise,  but  always  contingently  on  sufficient  and  efficient  help 
from  Philip;  on  the  other  the  cold  caution  of  Philip  and 
the  distrust  evinced  by  his  Lieutenant  in  the  Low  Countries, 
on  account  of  the  duplicity  so  frequently  experienced  in  all 
dealings  with  Englishmen.  The  Duke  of  Alba  wrote  to 
Philip  on  4th  April,  1569:  "Notwithstanding  what  Don 
Guerau  writes,  I  am  not  yet  convinced  that  they  [the  Earls] 
are  not  deceiving  him."  2  This  attitude  of  mutual  distrust 
ruined  the  plot.  The  Duke  of  Alba  withheld  aid  for  fear  of 
treachery:  the  English  Catholic  gentry  who  should  have 
risen  according  to  promise,  did  not  do  so  when  the  Northern 
Earls  were  forced  into  action  by  Elizabeth,  because  they  did 
not  see  any  sign  of  the  essentially  necessary  Spanish  stand- 
ards; the  Earls,  deceived  in  the  support  they  counted  on, 
beat  a  retreat, — and  the  fiasco  was  complete. 

Don  Guerau  de  Spes,  however,  was  enthusiastic  as  to 
the  success  of  the  undertaking.  On  9th  May,  1569,  he 
wrote  to  his  royal  master  :  "  The  Duke  of  Norfolk  and  the 
Earl  of  Arundel  will,  I  believe,  openly  declare  themselves 
when  your  Majesty  pleases  to  signify  your  approval.  The 
Earl  of  Northumberland  also  has  verbally  promised  the 
same.  He  is  a  very  worthy  gentleman,  and  there  are 
numberless  others  with  the  same  desires.  All  the  North 
and  Wales  are,  for  the  great  part,  Catholic,  and  many  of 
the  people  are  attached  to  the  Queen  of  Scots,  although 

1  Spanish  State  Papers,  ii,  p.  139,  No.  90,  2nd  April,  1569,  Don 
Guerau  de  Spes  to  Philip  II. 

2  Ibid.,  p.  141,  No.  92. 


484  THE  RISING  OF  THE  NORTH 

the  heretic  portion  fear  her  because  she  is  a  Catholic."  1 
The  same  note,  clearly  with  no  intent  either  at  dramatic 
effect  or  contrast,  but  quite  unconsciously  on  the  Ambassa- 
dor's part,  furnishes  a  reason,  almost  a  justification,  for  the 
contemplated  rising,  from  its  religious  aspect.  "  They  are 
treating  all  Catholics  with  great  rigour,"  Don  Guerau  wrote, 
"  and  the  prisons  are  full  of  them.  At  midnight  last  night 
many  armed  royal  officers  entered  the  house  of  Antonio 
de  Guarras  in  search  of  him.  .  .  .  After  having  taken  there- 
from a  great  number  of  religious  images  and  crucifixes,  as 
well  as  figures  of  Our  Lady  and  the  Saints,  beautifully 
carved  in  bulk  and  gilded,  they  carried  them  through 
most  of  the  streets  in  the  morning,  as  if  in  procession,  with 
great  mockery  and  laughter,  saying  that  these  were  the 
gods  of  the  Spaniards.  .  .  .  They  burnt  half  of  these  images 
piled  on  a  cart  wheel  before  Guarras's  house,  and  the  other 
half  they  burnt  in  the  market-place."  Excesses  of  this  kind 
could  serve  but  one  purpose — that  of  fanning  the  smoulder- 
ing embers  of  discontent  into  an  active  flame,  and  such  a 
result  was  even  then  considered  not  improbable,  for  in  the 
middle  of  July,  Don  Guerau  de  Spes  informed  Philip  that 
"  a  rising  in  the  North  is  feared,  as  some  of  the  heretic 
ministers  are  arriving  here,  having  been  driven  out  by  the 
people."  2  It  is  not  suggested  that  the  intolerance  exhibited 
in  London  had  this  direct  influence  on  the  far  North ;  but 
the  happenings  in  London  are  merely  a  sample  of  what 
was  going  on  in  a  greater  or  less  degree  up  and  down  the 
country.  Complicated  cross  currents  of  politics  and  religious 
rancour  might  unite  to  sway  the  educated;  but  simpler 
issues  sufficed  to  arouse  the  illiterate  to  action.  Such 
were  provided  by  the  steady  pressure  of  persecution  and 
repression  exerted  against  all  that  the  peasantry  held  most 
dear.  Hence  the  time  was  almost  ripe  for  revolt.  Mean- 
while the  leaders  were  trying  to  get  the  vexed  question  of 
the  succession  settled ;  and  the  proposal  to  marry  Mary  to 
the  Duke  of  Norfolk  was  even  debated  in  Council.    At  one 

1  Spanish  State  Papers,  ii,  p.  147,  No.  95. 

2  Ibid.,  p.  174,  No.  119,  14th  July,  1569. 


THE  RISING  OF  THE  NORTH  485 

moment  Elizabeth  appeared  to  look  on  the  project  with 
favour;  at  the  next  she  wavered  and  drew  back,  unwilling 
to  commit  herself  to  a  declaration  of  policy,  fearful  of  what 
that  union  might  bode  to  herself.  All  this  appears  in  Don 
Guerau's  despatches.  In  a  summary  of  his  letters  to  Philip 
and  the  Duke  of  Alba,  may  be  seen  the  nucleus  of  the 
forces  arrayed  against  Elizabeth  and  Cecil.  "  Norfolk, 
Arundel  and  Lumley  desire  a  change  of  religion.  The  two 
latter  may  be  considered  Catholics,  and  they  say  they  will 
make  Norfolk  become  one.  This  will  be  aided  by  the  Earls 
of  Northumberland,  Derby,  Cumberland,  Montagu,  Dacre, 
Morley  and  many  other  Catholics,  as  well  as  by  the  North 
country,  Wales  and  Cornwall."  l  Then  the  Spanish  Am- 
bassador employed  his  master's  gold  to  strengthen  the 
disaffected,  and  it  cannot  be  doubted  that  along  with  the 
money  came  exaggerated  promises  of  physical  aid  of  which 
that  was  but  an  earnest.  "  I  have  disposed  of  the  6,000 
crowns  in  the  way  I  wrote  to  your  excellency,  and  I  see 
they  will  produce  great  fruit.  .  .  .  Norfolk  and  the  other 
adherents  of  the  Queen  of  Scots  are  very  busy  trying  to 
get  her  declared  the  Queen's  successor,  and  this  Queen  is 
already  somewhat  suspicious  of  the  Duke.  There  certainly 
will  be  some  turmoil  about  it.  The  Duke,  the  Earl  of 
Arundel,  and  Pembroke  are  pushing  the  business  forward, 
with  the  support  of  Northumberland,  Cumberland,  West- 
moreland, Derby,  Exeter,  Montagu,  Morley  and  others, 
and  they  all  assert  that  if  they  succeed,  religion  shall  be 
restored.  Leicester  says  that  he  will  be  with  them  in  the 
matter  of  the  succession,  and  Cecil  says  he  will  not  prevent 
it,  but  these  two  are  not  trusted  by  the  others."  2  Had  this 
knotty  point  been  satisfactorily  settled,  as  indeed  it  ought 
to  have  been,  there  would  most  likely  have  been  no  rising. 
But  Elizabeth  took  alarm;  and  the  Spanish  Ambassador 
wrote  on  14th  September  to  King  Philip:  "  The  Queen  has 
declared  her  will   that  the  Duke  of  Norfolk  should  not 

1  Spanish  State  Papers,  ii,  p.  158,  No.  102,  31st  May  and  1st  June. 
a  Ibid.,  p.  183,  No.  126,  1st  August,  1569,  Don  Guerau  de  Spes  to 
the  Duke  of  Alba. 


486  THE  RISING  OF  THE  NORTH 

marry  the  Queen  of  Scots,  notwithstanding  that  the 
Council  had  decided  that  the  interests  of  the  country 
would  be  served  thereby.  As  the  majority  of  the  Council 
is  on  the  side  of  the  Duke  in  this,  I  think  that  certainly 
there  will  be,  in  a  short  time,  great  turmoils  here." 1  Three 
days  later  he  again  wrote :  "  The  Queen  has  already  re- 
turned to  Hampton  Court,  whither  she  has  summoned  all 
the  members  of  her  Council  for  this  day  week ;  she  has  let 
the  Duke  of  Norfolk  know  her  will  that  he  should  not 
marry  the  Queen  of  Scots,  but  I  do  not  believe  the  Duke 
will  desist  from  his  enterprise  in  consequence.  A  stronger 
guard  has  been  placed  around  the  Queen  of  Scots,  although 
I  have  understood  she  will,  nevertheless,  soon  find  herself 
at  liberty,  and  this  country  greatly  disturbed.  All  the 
North  is  ready,  and  only  awaits  the  release  of  the  Queen 
of  Scots.  .  .  .  Events  are  now  coming  to  a  head.  .  .  .  Your 
Majesty  can  then  decide  what  will  be  best  for  your  service. 
Perhaps  God  is  now  opening  a  wide  door  which  shall  lead 
to  the  great  good  of  Christendom."  2  But  it  was  one  thing 
for  Elizabeth  to  negative  the  proposed  match,  another  for 
the  Duke  "  to  desist  from  his  enterprise,"  as  Don  Guerau 
said.  He  showed  no  disposition  to  acquiesce  in  the  Queen's 
decision,  and  the  nobles  who  favoured  the  marriage  were 
just  as  loth  to  let  the  scheme  drop.  The  Earls  of  Arundel 
and  Pembroke  and  Lord  Lumley  were  in  consequence 
arrested,3  and  the  Queen  made  it  clear  that  she  meant  to 
get  the  Duke  as  well  into  her  hands.  On  22nd  September, 
Don  Guerau  de  Spes  informed  Philip  that  "  a  servant  of 
the  Earl  of  Northumberland  whom  I  know  came  to  me  [on 
2 1  st  September]  and  made  the  sign  which  his  master  and  I 
had  agreed  upon.  He  said  that  his  lord  and  his  friends  in 
the  North  had  agreed  to  liberate  the  Queen  of  Scots,  as 
thereby  they  would  assure  the  Catholic  religion.  ...  His 
master  wished  to  know  if  you  would  approve  of  this.  .  .  . 

1  Spanish  State  Papers,  ii,  p.  191,  No.  139. 

2  Ibid.,  p.  192,  No.  140,  17th  September,  1569. 

3  Ibid.,  p.  197,  No.  146,  30th  September,  Don  Guerau  de  Spes  to 
King  Philip. 


THE  RISING  OF  THE  NORTH  487 

The  Duke  of  Norfolk  is  here  [London]  preparing  all  his 
friends."1     On    27th    September    he   wrote:    "Since    my 
letter  of  22nd    .    .    .    the    Duke  of  Norfolk,  who  was  in 
London,  having  learnt  that  the  Queen  desired  to  have  him 
arrested,  suddenly  departed  for  his  country,  and  on  the 
road  sent  a  letter  to  the  Queen.  .  .  .  The  Queen  is  greatly 
alarmed  about  it,  and  has  summoned  to  Windsor,  where 
she  is,  all  the  members  of  the  Council.  .  .  ." 2    A  long  des- 
patch of  8th  October  to  King  Philip,  throws  further  light 
on  the  succeeding  events  which  hastened  the  final  outbreak. 
"  Arundel,    Pembroke    and    Lumley  .  .  .  were    judicially 
interrogated  by  Cecil  and  four  other  commissioners  as  to 
who  had  initiated  the  plan  of  marrying  the  Queen  of  Scots 
to  the  Duke  of  Norfolk;  and  they  replied  jointly  that  it 
was  the  unanimous  wish  of  all  the  Council.  ...  In  the 
meanwhile  couriers  .  .  .  were  .  .  .  despatched  ...  to  the 
Duke   of  Norfolk,   urging   him    ...    to   come   into   her 
[Elizabeth's]   presence.    The    Duke,  either  to  avoid   the 
first  fury  falling  upon  his  own  head,  or  with  the  idea  that 
his  friends  were  not  yet  ready  .  .  .  has  abandoned  for  the 
present  his  attempt  at  revolt,  and  returned  with  a  few  horse 
[to  the  vicinity  of  the  Court]  where  ...  he  is  now  detained. 
He  has  been  interrogated  like  the  others.   The  prisoners 
expect  to  be  free  shortly.  .  .  .  The  friends  of  the  prisoners 
who   are   the    Earls   of  Northumberland,  Westmoreland, 
Cumberland,  Derby,  and  many  others,  all  Catholics,  are 
much  grieved  at  this  cowardice,  if  such  it  can  be  called,  of 
the  Duke  of  Norfolk;  and  they  have  sent  ...  to  say  that 
they  will  by  armed  force  release  the  Queen  [of  Scots]  and 
take  possession  of  all  the  North  country,  restoring  the 
Catholic  religion.  .  .  .  They  only  ask  that  after  they  have 
released  the  Queen  they  should  be  aided  by  your  Majesty 
with  a  small  number  of  harquebussiers.  ...  I   feel  sure 
they  will  attempt  the  task,  and  it  will  be  better  carried 
through  by  them  than  by  the  Duke  of  Norfolk,  as  they  are 
more  fit  for  it,  and  the  Queen  of  Scots  will  have  more 

1  Spanish  State  Papers,  ii,  p.  195,  No.  142. 

2  Ibid.,  p.  196,  No.  145. 


488  THE  RISING  OF  THE  NORTH 

freedom  afterwards  in  the  choice  of  her  husband.  ...  It  is 
thought  that  they  will  not  dare  to  take  the  Duke  to  the 
Tower,  although  in  this  they  may  be  deceived,  because 
they  who  now  rule  are  all  Protestants,  and  most  of  them 
creatures  of  Cecil."  l 

So  long  as  the  release  and  marriage  of  Mary  to  the  Duke 
of  Norfolk  were  possibilities,  the  danger  of  revolt  was  re- 
mote: when  the  Duke  put  himself  into  Elizabeth's  power, 
the  Catholic  Earls  determined  that  the  time  had  come  to 
act  independently.  Had  Mary  been  released,  they  might 
have  been  content  to  go  on  waiting  for  an  amelioration  of 
the  lot  of  their  co-religionists  following  on  Elizabeth's 
demise;  but  now  that  the  spontaneous  release  of  Mary 
seemed  less  likely,  they  resolved  to  hazard  the  attempt  to 
set  her  free  themselves.  Attention  is  called  to  the  sequence 
of  events  as  here  recorded,  in  order  to  compare  it  with  that 
given,  for  instance,  in  Sharon  Turner's  Modern  History  of 
England?  That  historian,  it  is  true,  relied  for  his  informa- 
tion upon  contemporary  writers  like  Catena  and  Gabutius; 
but,  though  this  gave  him  the  verisimilitude  of  accuracy,  a 
moment's  consideration  would  show  that  as  they  were  not 
actors  in  the  events  they  chronicled,  but  wrote  from  afar, 
they  were  peculiarly  unsafe  guides.  Thus,  Sharon  Turner 
represents  Pius  V  as  plotting  against  Elizabeth;  that 
Ridolfi  started  the  idea  of  marrying  Mary  to  the  Duke  of 
Norfolk,  and  that  the  Pope  published  a  Bull  in  order  to  help 
forward  the  chances  of  an  insurrection ;  that  the  Bull  was 
smuggled  into  England,  and  a  copy  fastened  on  the  Bishop 
of  London's  gate.  Mr.  Turner  then  proceeds:  "The  con- 
tents so  excited  the  public  mind  to  obey  Elizabeth  no 
longer,  that  if  they  had  found  out  at  the  moment  a  leader, 
they  would  have  rushed  to  a  sudden  revolt.  Alarmed  at 
such  symptoms,  Elizabeth  immediately  armed;  and  the 
Earls  of  Northumberland  and  Westmoreland,  dreading  an 
arrest  .  .  .  raised  a  rebellion  .  .  .  failed.  .  .  .  But  it  occa- 
sioned the  Duke  of  Norfolk  to  be  placed  in  ward,  from 

1  Spanish  State  Papers,  ii,  p.  198,  No.  147. 

2  1838,  vol.  xii,  pp.  192-3. 


THE  RISING  OF  THE  NORTH  489 

suspicion  ;  and  some  others,  with  Ridolfi,  to  be  imprisoned; 
but  Elizabeth  being  unable  to  find  out  the  secrets  of  the 
conspiracy,  they  were  all  set  at  liberty,  excepting  the  Duke." 
It  is  enough  here  to  point  out  that  the  Duke  was  in  the 
Queen's  hands  before  the  Northern  Rising,  which  took 
place  in  November,  1569:  that  the  famous  Bull  was  only 
published  in  March,  1570,  and  affixed  to  the  Bishop  of 
London's  gate  in  May,  1570:  to  show  that  the  above  account 
is  wrong  in  every  particular. 

It  is  at  this  period  that  the  religious  aspect  of  the  rising 
began  to  be  put  in  the  forefront  as  the  cause  most  likely  to 
rally  to  the  Earls'  standard  the  peasantry  of  the  North; 
for,  as  Sir  Ralph  Sadler  wrote  at  the  time:  "there  be  not 
ten  gentlemen  in  all  this  country  [i.e.,  the  North]  that  do 
favour  and  allow  of  her  Majesty's  proceedings  in  the  cause 
of  religion,"  and  he  described  the  common  people  as  "ignor- 
ant, superstitious,  and  altogether  blinded  with  the  old  popish 
doctrine." l  Sir  Cuthbert  Sharpe  has  well  described  the 
situation  in  the  following  words :  "  the  ancient  Faith  still 
lay  like  lees  at  the  bottom  of  men's  hearts;  and  if  the 
vessel  was  ever  so  little  stirred,  came  to  the  top."2  It  was 
on  such  material  that  the  Catholic  Earls  set  to  work ;  and 
it  was  this  knowledge  of  the  real  state  of  things  that  so 
alarmed  Cecil  and  Elizabeth's  other  intimate  advisers,  and 
nerved  them  to  promptness  in  meeting  the  danger. 

Meanwhile,  the  Spanish  Ambassador's  schemes  were 
simmering  in  Philip's  calculating  brain;  but  his  caution 
lagged  behind  the  hurrying  sequence  of  events.  Some  days 
after  the  die  had  been  cast,  the  King  wrote  to  his  repre- 
sentative in  England:  "if  the  marriage  of  the  Duke  of 
Norfolk  with  the  Queen  of  Scots  is  effected  in  the  way,  and 
with  the  objects  of  which  you  are  informed,  there  is  no 
doubt  that  it  would  be  of  great  moment  and  importance 
for  the  restoration  of  our  true  and  ancient  religion  in  Eng- 
land, and  would  console  the  good  Catholics  who  are  at 
present  so  oppressed.     I  desire  these  objects  very  warmly 

1  P.R.O.  Dom.  Eliz.,  Add.,  xv,  No.  77,  6th  December,  1569. 

2  Memorials  of  the  Rebellion  of  1569,  Introd.,  p.  x. 


■ 


490  THE  RISING  OF  THE  NORTH 

as  you  know;  but  they  must  be  very  careful  how  they 
undertake  the  business,  for  if  they  make  a  mistake  they  will 
all  be  ruined."1  These  pompous  platitudes  might  perhaps 
have  been  of  some  use,  if  the  prophetic  warning  with  which 
they  terminate  had  been  given  six  weeks  earlier;  as  it 
was,  they  only  accentuated  the  folly  of  the  English  Earls  in 
trusting  Spanish  promises  of  aid.  The  Duke  of  Alba, 
indeed,  had  somewhat  sharply  rebuked  Don  Guerau  de 
Spes's  imprudent  zeal,  and  had  written  to  him  on  4th 
September,  1569:  "  leave  the  direction  of  these  affairs  en- 
tirely to  me:  do  not  you  interpose  in  anything;  I  have 
written  to  you  fifty  times  to  keep  out  of  any  negociations."2 

On  the  strength  of  such  peremptory  instructions,  the 
Governor  of  the  Low  Countries  may  have  considered  that 
the  matter  would  be  dropped.  But  Don  Guerau  was  not 
the  man  to  abandon  his  pet  schemes  so  easily.  He  con- 
tinued to  urge  on  King  Philip  the  desirability  of  interven- 
tion. Doubtless,  however,  on  Alba's  reports  Philip  may 
have  thought  that  de  Spes's  schemes  were  coming  to 
nothing,  or  at  least  were  being  delayed ;  for,  on  18th  Novem- 
ber, he  was  still  persuaded  that  the  Northern  Earls  were 
even  then  waiting  for  a  sign  from  him,  and  had  not  got  be- 
yond the  stage  of  preparation.  But  that  stage  was  then 
past,  and  the  Rubicon  had  been  crossed.  On  23rd  October, 
Don  Guerau  wrote  to  the  Spanish  King  that  "  The  Duke 
is  still  in  the  Tower.  The  Earls  of  Arundel  and  Pembroke, 
Lord  Lumley  and  Nicholas  Throckmorton  are  prisoners  at 
the  Court  or  near  to  it.  .  .  .  The  Earl  of  Northumberland's 
servant  returned  last  night  to  assure  me  that  whenever 
your  Majesty  wished,  they  would  release  the  Queen  of 
Scots,  would  marry  her  to  your  Majesty's  liking,  and  try  to 
restore  the  Catholic  religion  in  this  country."3 

The  scene  now  shifts  from  the  Ambassador's  house  to  the 
North.  The  Council  learnt  from  the  Earl  of  Sussex,  Lord 
President  of  the  North,  that  active  preparations  of  some 

1  Spanish  State  Papers,  ii,  p.  209,  No.  157,  18th  November,  1569. 

2  Chron.  Belg.,  No.  mdccccliv,  v,  p.  455. 

3  Spanish  State  Papers,  ii,  p.  201,  No.  149. 


THE  RISING  OF  THE  NORTH  491 

sort  were  in  progress  in  that  country ;  that  there  was  much 
restlessness  and  going  to  and  fro,  and  the  truth  began  to 
be  suspected.  Thus,  a  paper,  endorsed  by  Cecil,  Notes  of 
uncertain  brutes,  dated  2nd  November,  1569,  states  that 
"  The  persons  that  by  the  uncertain  '  brutes '  be  named  to 
be  great  doers  in  these  matters,  be  all  evil  of  religion,  as 
Robert  Tempest  and  John  Swinburn,  of  the  Bishopric  of 
Durham;  Thomas  Markenfield,  Francis  Norton,  Thomas 
Hussey,  and  one  Heighington,  of  Yorkshire;  and  amongst 
them  is  also  named  Christopher,  son  of  Sir  Christopher 
Danby."1  The  Spanish  Ambassador  was  always  early  in 
possession  of  the  latest  information.  Thus,  on  8th  Novem- 
ber, he  wrote  to  Philip:  "  The  Queen  has  ordered  the  Earl 
of  Northumberland  and  others  from  the  North  Country  to 
come  to  Court ;  they,  however,  have  no  intention  of  doing 
so,  as  they  are  suspicious  that  they  might  be  detained  like 
the  rest."2  This  summons  had  but  just  been  sent,  for  on 
9th  November,  the  Earl  of  Sussex  wrote  to  Sir  George 
Bowes,  his  lieutenant  nearest  to  the  probable  scene  of  out- 
break :  "  Yesterday  I  received  letters  from  the  Earls  of 
Northumberland  and  Westmoreland.  The  Earl  of  North- 
umberland promiseth  to  come,  but  he  writeth  not  when, 
and  is  yesternight  come  to  Topcliffe  [one  of  his  seats  in 
Yorkshire].  The  Earl  of  Westmoreland  refuseth  to  come, 
for  fear  of  his  enemies,  except  he  should  come  with  force, 
which  would  be  cause  of  offence;  and,  therefore,  I  intend 
to  write  the  Queen's  commandment  to  them  for  their  re- 
pair to  her  Majesty  presently  [i.e.,  at  once]."3  A  few  hours 
later  he  again  wrote :  "  I  have  sent  my  letters  to  my  Lord 
of  Westmoreland  ...  to  repair  to  the  Queen's  Majesty, 
whereof  I  have  yet  no  answer;  and  for  that  my  Lord  of 
Northumberland  did  dally  with  his  confederates  after  he 
came  to  Topcliffe,  I  sent  the  like  to  him  yesterday."4 

1  Cotton  MS.  Caligula  C.  1347. 
J  Spanish  State  Papers,  ii,  p.  208,  No.  155. 
3  Sir  C.  Sharpe,  Memorials  of  the  Rebellion  of  1569,  p.  13. 
1  Ibid.,  p.  13,  Sussex  to  Bowes:  "At  York,  in  haste,  10th  Novem- 
ber, 1569,  at  midnight." 


492  THE  RISING  OF  THE  NORTH 

The  Earls  were  waiting  to  hear  news  of  help  from  Philip ; 
but  here  was  a  plain  summons  from  their  Sovereign  which 
had  to  be  obeyed,  or  open  rebellion  must  be  declared.  By 
this  means  they  were  hurried  into  action  before  they  were 
fully  prepared.  Through  anticipation  of  personal  danger 
they  refused  to  obey,  issued  their  proclamation,  and 
marched  into  Durham  from  Brancepeth,  the  seat  of  the 
Earl  of  Westmoreland,  which  had  been  made  the  rendez- 
vous. The  Council  of  the  North  wrote  to  the  Queen :  "  The 
Earls  do  not  intend  to  obey  your  commandment  for  their 
repair  to  your  presence;  and  that  they  have  been  at  Dur- 
ham with  their  force  in  armour,  to  persuade  the  people  to 
take  their  parts,  and  some  of  the  company  have  thrown 
down  the  Communion  table,  and  torn  the  Holy  Bible  in 
pieces,  so  as  it  appeareth  directly  they  intend  to  make  re- 
ligion their  ground."1  This  was  so,  as  maybe  seen  from 
their  proclamation:  "  Thomas,  Earl  of  Northumberland, 
Charles,  Earl  of  Westmoreland  do  the  people  to  under- 
stand that  they  intend  no  hurt  unto  the  Queen's  Majesty 
nor  her  good  subjects;  but  for  as  much  as  the  order  of 
things  in  the  Church  and  matters  of  religion  are  presently 
set  forth  and  used  contrary  to  the  ancient  and  Catholic 
Faith;  therefore  their  purposes  and  meanings  are  to  reduce 
all  the  said  causes  in  religion  to  the  ancient  customs  and 
usages  before  used ;  wherein  they  desire  all  good  people  to 
take  their  parts."2 

The  course  of  the  ill-considered  enterprise  need  not  here 
be  recapitulated  in  detail ;  it  is  well  known  and  may  be 
studied  in  every  history.  It  is  supposed  that  Chiappino 
Vitelli,  the  great  Italian  general,  sent  ostensibly  as  an 
envoy  to  Elizabeth,  was  really  in  England  to  take  com- 
mand of  the  forces  that  should  rally  to  the  standard  of 
rebellion.  But  he  was  not  so  employed;  and  the  leaders 
who  actually  took  the  field  proved  utterly  incompetent  for 
the  task.    The  situation  is  in  part  well  described  by  Sir 

1  Memorials,  p.  35,  15th  November,  1569. 

2  From  Staindrop,  15th  November,  1569;  cf.  Cotton  MS.  Caligula 
B.  IX,  No.  189,  f.  342*. 


THE  RISING  OF  THE  NORTH  493 

Cuthbert  Sharpe,  the  close  student  of  this  unfortunate 
undertaking.  "  The  confederates,  however,  having  no  con- 
trolling spirit  to  direct  their  proceedings,"  he  wrote,  "  wasted 
their  time  in  idle  and  angry  discussions,  and  their  councils 
were  distracted  by  conflicting  opinions;  and  when  the  fre- 
quency of  their  meetings  attracted  the  jealous  observation 
of  the  Government,  they  still  remained  in  doubt  and  hesita- 
tion, till  the  indiscreet  zeal  of  a  few  headstrong  and  reckless 
partisans  hurried  the  Earls  into  measures  for  which  they 
were  unprepared;  and  although  their  rank  and  station, and 
the  '  cause '  they  espoused,  drew  many  to  their  standard, 
who  beheld  in  the  'rising'  the  eagerly  desired  triumph  of 
the  ancient  Faith,  it  was  soon  discovered  that,  in  the  leaders, 
whom  circumstances  had  placed  in  the  front  of  this  perilous 
enterprise,  there  was  neither  unity  of  council,  singleness  of 
purpose,  commanding  talent,  nor  moral  courage."  l  When 
Sir  Cuthbert  Sharpe  made  these  strictures,  the  Record 
Office,  the  Simancas  Archives,  and  other  sources  of  original 
and  first-hand  information  were  not  available.  It  was  not 
"  the  indiscreet  zeal  of  a  few  headstrong  and  reckless  par- 
tisans "  that  caused  the  final  outbreak,  but  the  royal  sum- 
mons to  proceed  to  Court,  and,  as  the  Earls  very  well  knew, 
this  was  merely  a  stage  on  the  journey  to  the  Tower,  pos- 
sibly to  the  scaffold.  They  relied  on  the  promises  with 
which  Don  Guerau  de  Spes  had  plied  them,  and  trusted 
to  the  uprising  of  all  the  English  Catholics.  Hence,  when 
they  refused  to  obey  the  Queen's  commands,  they  further 
irrevocably  committed  themselves  by  entering  Durham  in 
arms  on  14th  November,  and  having  Mass  publicly  sung 
in  the  Cathedral.  For  a  short  time  they  acted  with  vigour, 
and  marched  rapidly  to  Ripon,  Wetherby,  and  Tadcaster, 
and  made  their  main  assembly  on  Clifford  Moor.  But  the 
object  of  this  southward  movement,  the  liberation  of  the 
Queen  of  Scots,  was  frustrated  by  the  timely  removal  of 
that  unfortunate  lady  from  Tutbury  to  Coventry,  and  the 
Earls  hesitated  as  to  what  course  to  pursue.  Some  think 
that  this  hesitation  was  due  to  distrust  or  disagreement; 
1  Memorials^  pp.  xiii-xiv. 


494  THE  RISING  OF  THE  NORTH 

more  probably  it  was  because  the  leaders  perceived  no 
response  to  their  movements  on  the  part  of  the  great  body 
of  their  co-religionists  of  England,  who  in  their  turn  were 
waiting  for  some  indication  of  the  arrival  of  foreign  aid. 
The  rebel  Earls  then  suddenly  retreated,  returning  to  the 
county  of  Durham,  where  they  wasted  further  time  in  be- 
sieging Sir  George  Bowes  in  Barnard  Castle.  This  able 
soldier  offered  a  prolonged  and  gallant  resistance;  and 
when  at  last  after  many  of  his  garrison  had  deserted  to  the 
rebels,  he  was  forced  to  capitulate,  the  Earls  in  recognition 
of  his  bravery  let  him  depart  with  the  honours  of  war.  But 
this  minor  success  was  dearly  bought.  As  soon  as  the 
rebellion  broke  out,  the  Queen  wrote  to  the  Earl  of  Sussex, 
desiring  him,  if  he  had  sufficient  strength,  to  "  set  upon  the 
rebels  ";  but  if  he  were  weak,  then  to  entertain  them  "  with 
talk  and  other  devices  "  for  "  drawing  forth  of  time  "  until 
the  arrival  of  Lord  Hunsdon  with  the  royal  forces,  "  but 
not  to  let  the  rebels  think  that  delay  ariseth  from  weak- 
ness." x  The  Northern  Earls  "  drew  forth  the  time "  and 
played  into  the  Queen's  hands  by  their  useless  siege  of 
Barnard  Castle,  during  which  precious  ten  days  the  army  of 
the  south,  commanded  by  the  Earl  of  Warwick  and  Lord 
Clinton,  hurried  up  to  Doncaster.  Sussex,  thus  powerfully 
reinforced,  advanced  rapidly  towards  Durham ;  and  on  his 
approach,  the  Earls,  without  waiting  for  an  attack,  suddenly 
fled  towards  Hexham,  disbanded  their  motley  foot,  never 
of  any  great  strength,  and  finally  took  refuge  with  a  few- 
hundred  horsemen  in  Scotland.  Sir  Cuthbert  Sharpe  con- 
cludes his  admirable  preface  by  remarking:  "  Thus  termin- 
ated an  enterprise,  begun  without  foresight,  conducted 
without  energy,  and  ending  in  dastardly  and  inglorious 
flight ;  entailing  on  the  families  of  those  concerned  lasting 
misery;  and  inflicting  on  the  leaders  attainder,  proscrip- 
tion and  death." 2  It  may  be  of  interest  to  see  how  these 
events  presented  themselves  to  their  chief  instigator,  the 

1  Memorials,  p  49,  Lord  Sussex  to  Sir  G.  Bowes,  18th  November, 
1569. 

2  Ibid.,  p.  xix. 


THE  RISING  OF  THE  NORTH  495 

Spanish  Ambassador.  On  1st  December,  1569,  he  reported 
to  the  Duke  of  Alba  that  "the  people  in  the  North  are 
strong  and  have  12,000  infantry  and  3,000  horse  together. 
They  intended  to  go  towards  Tutbury  to  release  the  Queen 
of  Scots;  but  as  they  hear  she  has  been  conveyed  to 
Coventry  they  have  stopped  with  the  intention  of  giving 
battle  to  the  Queen's  forces,  for  which  purpose  the  Northern 
people  will  gather  30,000  men." '  This  Falstaffian  and 
swollen  estimate  is  a  fair  sample  of  the  material  upon 
which  the  rising  was  grounded.  Two  days  later  the  first 
misgivings  appear  in  a  despatch  to  Philip:  "I  enclose  a 
copy  of  their  [i.e.,  the  Earls']  proclamation,  and  of  that  of 
the  Queen.  The  Catholics  in  Wales  and  the  West  have 
not  yet  followed  the  example  of  those  of  the  North, 
although  it  is  said  they  are  about  to  do  so.  .  .  .  The 
Catholics  appear  to  be  waiting  in  their  own  country,  where 
they  have  fortified  themselves  on  the  banks  of  the  Trent, 
to  be  attacked  by  the  troops  from  here.  In  the  meanwhile 
they  will  see  what  their  friends  do  and  what  aid  can  be  sent 
them."  2  Still  later,  the  same  to  him  unaccountable  hesita- 
tion of  the  Catholic  gentry  is  again  pointed  out.  "  The 
Earls  of  Northumberland  and  Westmoreland  tarry  in  their 
own  country  in  the  North,  preferring  to  await  there  the 
arrival  of  the  Queen's  troops.  .  .  .  Their  Catholic  friends, 
from  all  of  whom  they  hold  signed  pledges,  have  made  no 
movement  yet.  It  is  true  that  they  are  much  disturbed, 
and  it  seems  that,  if  they  can  count  upon  some  foreign 
aid,  they,  too,  will  rise." 3  In  this  same  despatch  he  casually 
mentions  the  activity  of  the  Government  in  forestalling  any 
possible  gathering  of  Catholics  in  aid  of  the  Northern  Earls. 
"  The  Councillors  think  only  of  afflicting  the  Catholics,"  he 
writes,  "who  are  being  taken  to  prison  in  great  troops." 
When  it  was  too  late  for  them  to  be  of  any  use,  the  royal 
instructions  from  Madrid,  for  which  de  Spes  had  so  earn- 

1  Spanish  State  Papers,  ii,  p.  213,  No.  160. 

2  Ibid.,  p.  214,  No.  161,  3rd  December. 

3  Ibid.,  p.  218,  No.  166,  1 8th  December,  1569,  Don  Guerau  de  Spes 
to  Philip  II. 


496  THE  RISING  OF  THE  NORTH 

estly  and  so  long  pressed,  at  length  arrived.  Philip  wrote 
to  Alba  on  24th  December,  1569:  "It  will  be  well  for 
Vitelli  to  depart  with  a  show  of  bravado,  and  for  recourse 
to  be  had  to  force,  as  reason  has  been  of  no  avail.  We 
have  justice  on  our  side  in  coming  to  the  aid  of  the 
Scottish  Queen.  Seize  the  opportunity  without  waiting 
for  further  orders,  lest  the  favourable  moment  should  slip 
by.  Nevertheless  we  must  provide  for  our  own  safety,  and 
weigh  prudently  how  this  resolution  will  be  received  by 
France  and  the  Protestant  princes  of  Germany."  l 

The  final  phase,  however,  appears  in  a  letter  of  a  week 
earlier  from  Philip  to  Alba,  in  which  he  remarks:  "Our 
reputation  begins  to  suffer  by  deferring  for  so  long  to 
apply  a  remedy  to  the  harm  this  woman  is  causing  my 
subjects  and  my  friends.  Perhaps  our  best  course  would 
be  to  furnish  monetary  help,  secretly,  to  the  Catholics  of 
the  North  and  in  Ireland.    Examine  this  prudently."  2 

Early  in  the  next  year  the  Spanish  Ambassador,  in  a 
lengthy  despatch  to  his  master,  recapitulated  the  main 
features  of  the  abortive  rebellion,  adding  that  when  the 
Earls  published  their  proclamation  they  thought  "  by  this 
means  to  raise  the  other  Catholics,  many  of  whom  had 
already  pledged  their  words.  No  movement,  however,  was 
made  to  aid  them,  and  less  still  when  their  second  pro- 
clamation was  published.  .  .  .  The  Queen  mustered  her 
army  promptly;  and,  on  their  approach,  although  West- 
moreland wished  to  fight,  the  other  Earl  and  many  gentle- 
men, seeing  their  troops  were  few  and  badly  armed,  and  that 
they  were  without  artillery,  decided  to  take  refuge  in  Scot- 
land." 3 

Thus  vanished  the  opportunity  which  had  seemed  so 
favourable,  and  the  seizure  of  which  Don  Guerau  de  Spes 
had  so  urgently  advocated. 

Nothing  more  remained  but  for  the  Catholics  to  pay  the 
penalty  of  their   rashness.     The  Earl    of  Westmoreland 

1  Chron.  Belg.,  v,  p.  xxvi,  uned.  Doc,  t.  xxxviii. 

2  Ibid.,  v,  p.  xxvi,  uned.  Doc,  t.  xxxviii,  16th  December,  1569. 

3  Spanish  State  Papers,  ii,  p.  225,  No.  172,  9th  January,  1570. 


THE  RISING  OF  THE  NORTH  497 

escaped  to  the  Continent  to  eke  out  his  life  in  poverty;  the 
Earl  of  Northumberland  fell  into  the  Queen's  hands,  and 
suffered  the  fate  of  a  traitor,  along  with  many  others  of  the 
leaders.  Elizabeth  herself  had  said  to  Chiappino  Vitelli 
"  that  she  meant  to  have  some  heads." '  Surrey,  no  doubt 
acting  under  instructions,  certainly  gratified  her  wish,  by 
causing  to  be  executed  an  estimated  fifth  of  those  who  had 
risen,  purposing  by  this  cold-blooded  vindictiveness  to 
strike  terror  into  the  hearts  of  the  North  Country  folk,  whose 
homes  he  also  harried.  Surrey  sent  a  list  of  314  to  be  exe- 
cuted in  Durham  alone.2  Sir  Thomas  Gargrave  wrote  to 
Cecil  on  4th  February,  1569-70,  that,  "by  martial  law" 
there  had  been  "  already  executed  above  500  of  the  poorer 
sort," 3  and  suggested  that  others  might  be  attainted.  Fifty- 
six  were  so  dealt  with.4  The  vengeance  was  complete,  ruth- 
less, terrible.  Some  of  those  implicated  escaped  to  the 
Continent  to  become  poverty-stricken  pensioners  of  the 
King  of  Spain  and  to  plot  against  Elizabeth  from  a  safe 
distance.  The  result  of  the  Rising  was,  through  its  com- 
plete failure,  to  show  how  firmly  Elizabeth  was  seated  on  her 
throne.  It  had  been  thought,  both  at  home  and  abroad,  that 
Elizabeth  ruled  simply  by  sufferance  and  that  the  majority 
of  her  subjects  were  opposed  to  her:  that  at  the  first  serious 
uprising  she  would  fall.  The  opportunity,  dreaded  by  some, 
longed  for  by  others,  came,  and  served  to  prove  that  on  the 
whole  Elizabeth  could  depend  on  the  affection  of  her  people. 
Rebellion,  then,  was  useless  as  an  engine  for  her  overthrow ; 
hence  began  the  resort  to  spiritual  weapons  wherewith  to 
intimidate   the    English   Queen — weapons   which,  though 

1  Chron.  Belg.,  No.  mmx,  v,  p.  548,  Chiappino  Vitelli  to  Alba,  17th 
December,  1569.  "Elle  me  diet  qu'elle  estoit  devenue  maistresse  de 
ses  rebelles  du  quartier  de  Noort  et  en  avoit  denyche  les  chiefs,  dont 
elle  estoit  bien  a  son  repos,  et  que  de  brief  elle  en  feroit  coupper  des 
testes."  See,  too,  Elizabeth's  letter  to  the  Earl  of  Sussex,  on  nth 
January,  1569-70,  exhibiting  a  savage  thirst  for  blood.  P.R.O.  Dom. 
Eliz.,  Add.,  xvn,  No.  17. 

2  P.R.O.  Dom.  Eliz.,  Add.,  xvn,  No.  14,  8th  January,  1569-70. 

3  Ibid.,  xvn,  No.  68. 

4  Cotton  MS.  Titus  C.  VII,  No.  4,  f.  9b. 

K  K 


498  THE  RISING  OF  THE  NORTH 

they  to  some  extent  succeeded  in  the  purpose  for  which 
they  were  employed,  still  they  were  met  by  penal  enact- 
ments against  their  original  users,  whose  lot  was  thereby 
rendered  worse  than  it  had  been  before.  On  18th  January, 
1 569-70,  Don  Guerau  de  Spes  wrote  to  Philip  that  "  the 
Bishop  of  Ross  also  tells  me  that  the  Catholics  here  wish 
that  his  Holiness  would  publish  a  Bull  in  some  place  whence 
its  purport  would  reach  here,  absolving  them  from  the  oath 
of  allegiance  they  have  taken  to  this  Queen,  as  she  is  not  a 
Catholic,  and  calls  herself  Head  of  this  Church.  This,  they 
think,  would  be  desirable,  and  would  add  prestige  to  their 
claims." '  A  month  later  the  Ambassador  reported  that 
"  the  sentences  against  persons  and  property  in  the  North 
are  being  carried  out  with  great  rigour,  which  will  again 
force  them  into  revolt.  All  the  other  Catholics  are  on  the 
watch  for  help  from  abroad,  but  so  much  alarmed  that  they 
dare  not  trust  one  another." 2 

The  hopelessness  of  a  peaceful  solution  of  the  religious 
differences  in  England  being  by  now  established,  and  the 
resort  to  a  warlike  effort  to  secure  the  rights  of  Catholics 
having  failed,  the  councils  of  those  who  invoked  the  spiritual 
interference  of  the  Pope  as  Head  of  Christendom  at  length 
prevailed,  and  the  Bull  Regnans  in  Excelsis  was  launched 
against  Elizabeth.  Its  publication  by  affixion  to  the  Bishop 
of  London's  palace  gates,  carried  out  by  the  intrepidity  of 
John  Felton,  is  a  matter  of  common  history,  and  need  not 
here  be  further  dwelt  upon.  The  date  of  the  famous  Bull 
is  25th  February,  1569-70.  Felton's  bold  exploit  was  carried 
out  on  25th  May;  and  a  memorandum  of  letters  written  by 
Antonio  de  Guarras  of  the  dates  of  1  ith,  17th,  and  22nd  June, 
contains  the  following  references  to  the  subject :  "  The  de- 
claration of  the  Pope  against  the  Queen  has  been  posted  on 
the  Bishop  of  London's  gate,  which  has  caused  great  sorrow 
to  the  bad  people,  and  much  delight  to  the  godly  .  .  .  the 
first  result  of  the  declaration  has  been  the  persecution  and 
imprisonment  of  Catholics  ■  but  the  Council  finding  them 

1  Spanish  State  Papers,  ii,  p.  229,  No.  174. 

2  Ibid.,  p.  235,  No.  180,  25th  February,  1569-70. 


THE  RISING  OF  THE  NORTH  499 

constant  and  that  some  people  of  position  were  passing 
over  to  Spain  and  Flanders  to  escape  the  ban  of  his  Holi- 
ness, the  Queen  had  ordered  that  the  Catholics  should  not 
be  persecuted  for  their  religion.  This,  however,  was  only 
the  result  of  fear.  .  .  .  She  herself  has  answered  the  Pope's 
declaration  in  Latin  verse,  scoffing  at  the  Apostolic  au- 
thority, saying  that  the  barque  of  Peter  should  never  enter 
a  port  of  hers."  l  The  action  of  the  Pope  in  thus  intervening 
is  not  outside  criticism.  It  is  true  that  he  was  urged  to  adopt 
this  extreme  measure  by  Englishmen ;  but  by  Englishmen 
who,  by  reason  of  their  long  absence  from  home,  were  hardly 
in  a  position  to  form  a  judgment  both  dispassionate  and  well- 
informed.  Philip,  with  all  his  irritating  caution  and  calculat- 
ing slowness,  was,  after  all,  from  his  intimate  acquaintance 
with  all  the  circumstances,  in  a  far  better  position  to  offer 
sound  advice;  but  he  was  not  consulted  or,  indeed,  com- 
municated with  in  any  way.  Hence,  when  Don  Guerau 
informed  him  of  the  fait  accompli,  he  wrote  his  opinion 
about  it  with  considerable  warmth,  and  concluded  with 
words  of  prophetic  wisdom.  "  The  copies  I  received  from 
you  of  the  two  briefs  [Bulls]  despatched  by  his  Holiness, 
one  declaring  the  Queen  schismatic,  and  depriving  her 
of  her  throne,  and  the  other  written  to  the  Earls  of  West- 
moreland and  Northumberland,  were  the  first  information 
I  had  received  upon  the  subject.  His  Holiness  has  taken 
this  step  without  communicating  with  me  in  any  way, 
which  certainly  has  greatly  surprised  me,  because  my  know- 
ledge of  English  affairs  is  such  that  I  believe  I  could  give 
a  better  opinion  upon  them  and  the  course  that  ought  to 
have  been  adopted  under  the  circumstances  than  any  one 
else.  Since,  however,  his  Holiness  allowed  himself  to  be 
carried  away  by  his  zeal,  he  no  doubt  thought  that  what  he 
did  was  the  only  thing  requisite  for  all  to  turn  out  as  he 
wished;  and  if  such  were  the  case,  I,  of  all  the  faithful  sons 
of  the  Holy  See,  would  rejoice  the  most.  But  I  fear  that, 
not  only  will  this  not  be  the  case,  but  that  this  sudden  and 
unexpected  step  will  exacerbate  feeling  there,  and  drive 
1  Spanish  State  Papers,  ii,  p.  251,  No.  191,  June,  1570. 


500  THE  RISING  OF  THE  NORTH 

the  Queen  and  her  friends  the  more  to  oppress  and  persecute 
the  few  good  Catholics  still  remaining  in  England." l  The 
unwisdom  of  the  step,  as  pointed  out  by  Philip,  was  acknow- 
ledged by  one  of  Pius  V's  successors.  When  Urban  VIII 
was  besought  by  Cardinal  Borgia  to  excommunicate  the 
Kings  of  France  and  Sweden  and  to  declare  himself  for  the 
Catholics,  he  refused  on  these  grounds :  "  You  say  that  the 
King  of  Sweden  is  ipso  jure  excommunicated,  as  being  an 
heretic ;  and  therefore,  to  make  him  more  infamous,  at  least 
among  the  Catholics,  we  ought  to  declare  and  solemnly 
anathematise  him  for  an  excommunicate.  We  know  that 
the  Protestants,  although  they  are  out  of  the  Catholic 
Church,  for  so  much  as  concerns  the  Faith  and  common 
vows  and  suffrages,  yet  are  they  not  in  the  point  of  juris- 
diction, and  therefore  we  may  declare  them  excommunicate, 
as  Pius  V  declared  Queen  Elizabeth  of  England,  and  before 
him  Clement  VII  the  King  of  England,  Henry  VIII.  .  .  . 
But  with  what  success?  The  whole  world  can  tell.  We  yet 
bewail  it  with  tears  of  blood.  Wisdom  does  not  teach  us 
to  imitate  Pius  V  or  Clement  VII,  but  Paul  V,  who  .  .  . 
being  many  times  urged  ...  to  excommunicate  James  [I] 
King  of  England,  never  would  consent  unto  it."2 

It  is  easy  to  be  wise  after  the  event,  and  to  censure  errors 
of  judgment  when  their  results  have  already  condemned 
them :  but  in  this  case  the  errors  are  so  glaring,  the  ex- 
tenuating and  impelling  circumstances  so  conspicuously 
wanting,  that  unqualified  condemnation  alone  can  be  meted 
out  to  the  leaders  and  chief  agents  in  this  ill-considered 
enterprise.  It  is  more  difficult  to  apportion  blame  for  the 
actual  resolution  to  attempt  a  rising.  If  a  nation,  or  a 
reasonable  portion  thereof,  is  never  to  express  a  determina- 
tion to  secure  a  ruler  to  its  liking,  or  to  depose  one  who  has 
forfeited  its  esteem  and  loyalty,  then  the  Rising  of  the 
North  must  be  execrated  by  one  and  all.  But  then,  notwith- 
standing Macaulay's  splendid  advocacy  of  the  Rebellion  of 

1  Spanish  State  Papers,  ii,  p.  254,  No.  193,  30th  June,  1570. 
a  P.R.O.,  Foreign,  Italy,  1641-65,  quoted  by  R.  Simpson,  Life  of 
Campion,  ed.  1896,  p.  518. 


THE  RISING  OF  THE  NORTH  501 

1688,  that  revolt,  too,  must  be  unhesitatingly  condemned, 
together  with  all  its  consequences.  But  if  the  righteousness 
of  rejecting  James  II  is  to  be  maintained,  as  it  is  maintained 
by  the  majority  of  English  historians:  if  Parliament,  speak- 
ing for  the  nation,  or  a  victorious  faction,  succeeds  in  de- 
posing one  ruler  and  substituting  another  in  his  place;  then, 
what  was  right  for  the  patriots  of  1688  cannot  have  been 
wrong  for  the  insurgents  of  1569.  Their  crime  was  their 
failure,  as  indeed  the  only  justification  for  the  plotters  of 
1688  was  their  success.  For  in  the  latter  case,  a  lawful 
Sovereign  was  deposed  and  in  his  place  was  set  up  a 
foreigner  allied  to  the  English  throne  merely  by  marriage. 
In  the  former  instance  it  was  not  so  much  the  deposition  of 
the  reigning  Sovereign  that  was  aimed  at,  as  the  determina- 
tion to  force  from  her  a  settlement  of  the  succession  for  the 
quiet  of  men's  minds.  Deposition  was  intended  to  be  kept 
for  a  last  resort;  or,  if  it  might  be  defended  on  another 
plea,  it  was  the  setting  aside  of  a  doubtfully  legitimate 
Sovereign  for  one  whose  claims  were  above  any  suspicion. 
That  much  must  be  admitted,  though  the  folly,  under  the 
special  circumstances  of  the  particular  enterprise,  cannot 
but  be  condemned. 


CHAPTER  XII 

ATTITUDE  OF  THE   LAITY   TO   THE   RELIGIOUS   CHANGES, 
AND   THE   HARRYING   OF   THE   PAPISTS 

WITH  the  close  of  Queen  Elizabeth's  first  Parlia- 
ment, the  authority  of  the  Pope  in  matters  spiritual, 
wrested  from  him  by  Henry  and  restored  by  Mary,  was  once 
more  repudiated,  and  it  became  criminal  to  look  to  him  as 
Spiritual  Head,  and  to  render  to  him  allegiance  as  such. 
Moreover,  the  Mass,  the  central  act  of  Christian  worship, 
was  rejected,  and  it  became  unlawful  either  to  say  or  to 
hear  it  on  and  after  24th  June,  1559.  By  law,  by  decree  of 
the  legislature,  the  Real  Presence  in  the  Blessed  Sacrament 
was  denied  to  the  Faithful ;  and  little  time  was  lost  in  set- 
ting a  royal  example  of  expulsion,  for  as  Bishop  Quadra 
wrote  to  the  Duke  of  Alba  on  10th  May:  "  Yesterday  they 
removed  the  Sacrament  from  the  Palace  chapel  and  some 
sort  of  Mass  was  performed  in  English,  as  they  are  doing 
in  many  parish  churches."  x  The  Spanish  Bishop's  comment, 
further  on  in  the  same  letter,  furnishes  a  valuable  key  to- 
wards understanding  the  polity  of  nations  in  those  days. 
At  the  present  time  the  doctrine  of  complete  toleration  is 
accepted,  at  least  in  theory,  in  every  civilised  state,  except 
Russia.  In  Tudor  times  outward  conformity  in  matters  of 
religion  was  considered  essential  to  the  well-being  of  every 
State;  but  it  was  reserved  to  England  to  endeavour  to  secure 
internal  adhesion  to  the  State  religion,  by  the  method  of 
coercion  of  conscience.  "  To  force  a  man  to  do  a  thing 

1  Hume,  Spanish  Papers,  Eliz.,  No.  32.  Machyn's  Diary  contains 
a  similar  corroborative  entry :  "  The  xii  day  of  May  began  the  English 
[service]  in  the  Queen's  Chapel." 

502 


\Plowden  Hall,  Salop 


EDMUND  PLOWDEN 

CATHOLIC  LAWYER 


THE  LAITY  AND  RELIGIOUS  CHANGES  503 

whether  he  likes  it  or  not,"  remarked  Quadra,  "  has  at  all 
events  some  reason,  however  unjust;  but  to  force  him  to 
see  a  thing  in  the  same  light  as  the  King  sees  it,  is  absurd, 
and  has  no  reason  either  just  or  unjust;  and  yet  such  is  the 
ignorance  here  that  they  pass  such  a  thing  as  this.  Religion 
here  now  is  simply  a  question  of  policy."  1  It  was  the  con- 
crete application  in  practice  of  the  dictum  now  condemned 
as  wholly  indefensible:  Cujus  regio,  ejus  religio. 

There  were  in  existence,  then  as  at  other  times,  men  who, 
from  one  motive  or  another — the  despicable  one  of  gain,  or 
the  more  exalted  one  of  enthusiasm — were  ready  enough  to 
denounce  any  one  who  showed  unwillingness  to  conform. 
Thus,  as  early  as  21st  May,  1559,  a  certain  John  Cock  wrote 
Sir  William  Cecil  a  lengthy  Latin  epistle,  plentifully  inter- 
larded with  Greek  quotations.  The  gist  of  this  formidable- 
looking  document,  when  stripped  of  its  embellishments  and 
superfluities,  is  a  complaint  against  the  vicar  of  Shirburn, 
who,  it  would  seem,  refused  to  accept  the  Book  of  Common 
Prayer.  The  informer's  bombastic  farrago  was  to  urge  on 
the  responsible  authorities  strictness  in  enforcing  the  newly- 
passed  laws.2 

Edmund  Allen,  the  Bishop-designate  of  Rochester,  writ- 
ing to  Abel,  told  him  that "  on  Whitsun  Monday  [  1 3th  May] 
did  Mr.  Grindal  preach  at  the  Cross  ...  in  the  which  ser- 
mon, he  did  proclaim  the  restoring  of  the  Book  of  King 
Edward,  whereat  as  well  the  Lords  as  the  people  made,  or 
at  least  pretended,  a  wonderful  rejoicing,  never  a  bishop  or 
canon  of  Paul's  being  present  thereat.  .  .  .  Because  the 
penalty  for  the  not  receiving  of  the  Book  shall  not  take 
place  till  midsummer,  therefore  Paul's  and  certain  other 
churches  keep  their  popish  service  still,  but  the  most  part 
in  the  city  are  reformed.3 

1  Hume,  Spanish  Papers,  Eliz.,  No.  32. 

2  P.R.O.  Dom.  Eliz.  iv,  No.  26. 

3  28th  May,  1559.  Churton's  Life  of  Nowell,  p.  392.  This  letter  has 
been  hitherto  ascribed  to  Alex.  Nowell:  but  a  correction  in  the  R.O. 
Calendar,  Foreign,  Elizabeth,  points  out  that  Edmund  Allen  was  the 
writer. 


504  ATTITUDE  OF  THE  LAITY 

This  enthusiasm  for  the  new  service  (real  or  pretended, 
Edmund  Allen  did  not  venture  to  determine)  led  to  some 
disgraceful  ebullitions  of  mob-violence.  Writing  so  soon  as 
ioth  May,  II  Schifanoya  noted  that  "already  in  many 
churches  of  London  the  crucifixes  have  been  broken,  the 
figures  of  the  Saints  defaced,  and  the  altars  denuded." l 
The  same  letter  chronicles  an  interesting  example  of  the 
methods  pursued  by  fanatics,  unchecked  and  unpunished. 
"  On  Ascension  Day,2  while  the  procession  of  the  parish 
under  the  great  church  of  St.  Paul's  was  going  round  the 
precincts  with  a  large  company  of  people,  a  rascally  lad- 
servant  of  these  new  printers  against  the  Catholics,  violently 
and  publicly  took  the  Cross  out  of  the  hand  of  the  bearer, 
and  struck  it  on  the  ground  two  or  three  times,  breaking  it 
into  a  thousand  pieces.  He  was  not  molested,  and  nothing 
was  said  to  him,  save  by  some  good  men,  who  exclaimed : 
'Begone,  you  scoundrel';  but  no  one  attempted  to  hinder 
him.  Then  he  took  a  small  figure  from  the  said  Cross,  and 
went  off,  saying,  as  he  showed  it  to  the  women,  that  he 
was  carrying  away  the  devil's  guts  (horrible  and  wicked 
words).  Little  less  was  done  in  another  parish  of  London 
by  two  scoundrels,  who,  when  the  procession  was  about  to 
issue  forth  from  the  church,  placed  themselves  at  the  gate 
with  naked  swords  in  their  hands,  swearing  that  the  ecclesi- 
astics should  not  carry  such  an  abomination,  and  that  if 
they  came  forth,  they  should  never  re-enter.  Thus  your 
Lordship  may  see  how  the  affairs  of  God  and  of  the  religion 
are  faring.  I  say  nothing  about  the  printed  stories  and  lam- 
poons, and  innumerable  books  which  are  sold  publicly,  in 
English,  Latin  and  French,  against  the  Pope,  Cardinals, 
Bishops,  and  in  fact  against  all  the  Catholics  and  pious 
people,  and  against  the  Christian  religion,  as  it  is  a  shame 
and  reproach  to  have  already  written  about  them." 3 

The  observance  of  the  Feast  of  Corpus  Christi  naturally 
disappeared  with  the  faith  in  the  doctrine  in  whose  honour 

1  Venetian  Papers,  No.  71. 

2  ?  Eve :  i.e.,  the  last  of  the  three  Rogation  days  preceding  the  Feast. 

3  Venetian  Papers,  No.  71,  ioth  May,  1559. 


TO  THE  RELIGIOUS  CHANGES  505 

it  was  instituted;  and  on  that  occasion,  in  1559,  for  the 
first  time,  possibly,  the  people  might  have  been  seen  pur- 
suing their  ordinary  avocations  ;  the  shops  were  open  and 
business  went  on  as  usual.1  II  Schifanoya  further  recorded 
that  "with  regard  to  religion,  they  \i.e.,  the  Londoners]  live 
in  all  respects  in  the  Lutheran  fashion,  in  all  the  churches 
of  London,  except  St.  Paul's,  which  still  keeps  firm  in  its 
former  state  until  the  day  of  St.  John  the  Baptist  [24th 
June],  when  the  period  prescribed  by  Parliament  expires, 
the  Act  being  in  the  press,  and  soon  about  to  appear;  but 
the  Council  nevertheless  sent  twice  or  thrice  to  summon  the 
Bishop  of  London  (Bonner)  to  give  him  orders  to  remove 
the  service  of  the  Mass  and  of  the  divine  office  in  that 
church;  but  he  answered  them  intrepidly:  ■  I  possess  three 
things,  soul,  body,  and  property;  of  the  two  last  you  can 
dispose  at  your  pleasure  ;  but  as  to  the  soul,  God  alone  can 
command  me.' " ' 

A  contrast  with  what  was  taking  place  in  London  is 
offered  by  the  manifestation  of  Catholic  devotion  displayed 
at  Canterbury  at  the  very  same  time.  Bishop  Quadra  in- 
formed King  Philip  that  "  on  Sunday  last  they  had  a  pro- 
cession of  the  Holy  Sacrament  in  Canterbury,  in  which 
three  thousand  people  and  many  persons  of  worth  of  the 
country  side  took  part." 3 

Jewel  told  Peter  Martyr  in  his  fifth  letter  to  him  that 
"our  Papists  oppose  us  most  spitefully,  and  none  more 
obstinately  than  those  who  have  abandoned  us.  This  it  is 
to  have  once  tasted  of  the  Mass!  .  .  .  they  perceive  that 
when  that  palladium  is  removed,  everything  else  will  be 
endangered."4 

At  the  rising  of  the  Parliament,  Cox  wrote  to  Wolfgang 

1  Cf.  Venetian  Papers,  No.  77,  30th  May,  1559. 

2  Ibid. 

3  Chron.  Bet?.,  No  CCCLlll,  i,  p.  530,  London,  30th  May,  1559. 

4  I  Zur.,  No.  9,  undated;  but  the  3rd  is  dated  14th  April ;  then  comes 
another  dated  28th  April;  and  the  next  dated  one  is  1st  August,  1559 
(1  Zur.,  Nos.  6,  7,  16);  internal  evidence  points  to  this  one  being 
between  Nos.  7  and  16.  Jewel's  view  is  equivalent  to  the  sound  dictum 
of  the  Rt.  Honble.  Augustine  Birrell,  that  "it  is  the  Mass  that  matters." 


506  ATTITUDE  OF  THE  LAITY 

Weidner  that  "  at  length  many  of  the  nobility,  and  vast 
numbers  of  the  people,  began  by  degrees  to  return  to  their 
senses ;  but  of  the  clergy  none  at  all.  For  the  whole  body 
remain  unmoved."  1  He  likewise  referred  to  the  dearth  of 
ministers  of  his  own  way  of  thinking — a  matter  that  was  to 
engage  the  attention  of  the  reforming  leaders  for  a  con- 
siderable time  to  come.  "  We  are  already  endeavouring," 
he  said,  "to  break  down  and  destroy  the  popish  fences, 
and  to  repair  under  happy  auspices  the  vineyard  of  the 
Lord.  We  are  now  at  work ;  but  the  harvest  is  plenteous 
and  the  labourers  few."2  Edmund  Grindal,  writing  to  Con- 
rad Hubert  on  23rd  May,  sounds  the  same  note :  "  We  are 
labouring  under  a  great  dearth  of  godly  ministers,"  he 
laments,  "  for  many  who  have  fallen  off  in  this  persecution 
are  now  become  Papists  in  heart ;  and  those  who  had  been 
heretofore,  so  to  speak,  moderate  Papists,  are  now  the  most 
obstinate."  3  Jewel,  too,  in  a  letter  to  Bullinger  on  22nd 
May,  says  :  "  We  have  at  this  time  not  only  to  contend  with 
our  adversaries,  but  even  with  those  of  our  friends  who,  of 
late  years,  have  fallen  away  from  us,  and  gone  over  to  the 
opposite  party  ;  and  who  are  now  opposing  us  with  a  bitter- 
ness and  obstinacy  far  exceeding  that  of  any  common 
enemy."4  It  is  evident  from  these  and  such  like  passages, 
that,  though  the  mob  might  follow  the  first  leader  who  pre- 
sented himself  and  clamoured  for  change,  the  more  thought- 
ful, the  men  who  had  the  brains  and  education,  or  those 
with  a  stake  in  the  country,  like  the  local  magnates,  were 
not,  as  a  whole,  favourable  to  the  work  of  the  reform.  This 
view  is  further  borne  out  by  Jewel  in  the  same  letter  quoted 
above.  "  Our  Universities  are  so  depressed  and  ruined,  that 
at  Oxford  there  are  scarcely  two  individuals  who  think 
with  us  ;  and  even  they  are  so  dejected  and  broken  in  spirit, 
that  they  can  do  nothing."  5  This  despondent  survey  is  but 
a  repetition  of  what  the  same  writer  had  stated  earlier  to 
Peter  Martyr.  "  Two  famous  virtues,  namely  ignorance  and 
obstinacy,  have  wonderfully  increased  at  Oxford  since  you 

1  1  Zur.,  No.  11,  20th  May,  1559.  2  Ibid. 

3  Ibid.,  No.  8.  *  Ibid.,  No.  14.  5  Ibid. 


TO  THE  RELIGIOUS  CHANGES  507 

left  it :  religion,  and  all  hope  of  good  learning  and  talent  is 
altogether  abandoned."  '  Parkhurst  complained  to  Bullinger 
in  reference  to  Oxford  that  "  there  are  but  few  Gospellers 
there,  and  many  Papists."2  Jewel,  writing  to  Martyr  on 
1st  August,  bewailed  the  fact  that  there  was  "  a  dismal 
solitude  in  our  Universities.  The  young  men  are  flying  about 
in  all  directions,  rather  than  come  to  an  agreement  in  mat- 
ters of  religion." 3  A  year  later,  a  similar  story  is  unfolded 
by  the  same  writer  to  the  same  correspondent.  "  In  the 
meantime,"  wrote  Jewel,  "our  Universities,  and  more  es- 
pecially Oxford,  are  most  sadly  deserted ;  without  learning, 
without  lectures,  without  any  regard  to  religion." 4 

This  unrest  amongst  the  young  students  at  the  Univer- 
sities is  a  reflex  of  the  same  spirit  not  only  amongst  their 
elders,  the  Fellows  of  Colleges,  but  still  more  in  their  own 
homes.  In  connection  with  this  subject,  it  is  well  to  bear 
in  mind  that  the  reformers  were  compelled  to  be  very 
chary  about  proceeding  to  extremities  at  Oxford  Univer- 
sity at  least,  although  they  had  the  Acts  of  Parliament  at 
their  backs.  But  as  Mr.  R.  Simpson  points  out  in  his  Life 
of  Campion,  no  oath  was  required  of  the  future  Jesuit  as 
a  student  till  he  took  his  degree  in  1564,5  remarking  that 
"  the  authorities  did  not  want  to  make  Oxford  a  desert  by 
forcing  too  many  consciences."  And  Father  Persons  has 
left  it  on  record  that  it  was  through  Campion's  interven- 
tion that  "  the  oath  was  not  tendered  to  me  when  I  took 
my  M.A.  degree."  6  So  that  it  may  be  gathered  that  other 
Fellows,  though,  like  Campion,  conforming  outwardly 
themselves,  saved  others  from  doing  so. 

As  a  further  proof  of  this  spirit  of  resistance,  or  rather  of 
staunchness  to  all  that  they  had  been  taught  to  regard  as 
sacred,  it  may  be  of  interest  to  quote  a  passage  from  a 
letter  written  on  15th  November,  1 561,  by  Bishop  Quadra 

1  I  Zur.,  No.  4,  20th  March,  1558-9. 

2  Ibid.,  No.  12,  21st  May,  1559.  3  Ibid,  No.  16. 

4  Ibid.,  No.  33,  22nd  May,  1560. 

5  Life  of  Campion,  ed.  1896,  p.  5. 

6  Ibid.,  p.  6,  quoting  Stonyhurst  MS.  Collect.  S.f,  vol.  i,  p.  149. 


5o8  ATTITUDE  OF  THE  LAITY 

to  the  Duchess  of  Parma  in  the  Low  Countries.  "  Two 
days  ago,"  he  said,  "  six  young  students  from  Oxford  were 
thrown  into  the  Tower  of  London,  because,  when  sum- 
moned before  the  Council  on  a  charge  of  having  resisted 
the  Mayor  who  had  gone  to  remove  a  Crucifix  from  their 
College  chapel,  they  not  only  did  not  deny  it,  but  openly 
confessed  that  they  were  Catholics,  and  that  they  had 
communicated  as  Catholics;  and  they  offered  to  dispute 
publicly  with  the  heretics,  more  especially  on  the  subject 
of  the  Blessed  Sacrament.  The  Council  were  very  an- 
noyed to  hear  them  talk  so  openly;  but  the  Mayor  assured 
them  that  the  whole  place  was  of  the  same  opinion  and 
there  were  not  three  houses  in  it,  wherein  there  were  not 
Papists.  This  news  far  from  pleased  the  Council ;  and  they 
ordered  the  Mayor  to  be  careful  not  to  speak  of  this  with 
others."  x 

While,  however,  the  Council  were  being  thus  defied  by 
beardless  boys,  the  party  of  change  began  to  find,  as  is 
ever  the  case,  that  their  persistence  was  beginning  to  over- 
come opposition.  On  5th  March,  1560,  Jewel  told  Peter 
Martyr  that  "  religion  is  now  somewhat  more  established 
than  it  was.  The  people  are  everywhere  exceedingly  in- 
clined to  the  better  part."  The  causes  he  alleges  as  pro- 
ducing this  greater  appearance  of  conformity  are  char- 
acteristic, not  only  of  the  time,  but  of  future  "  revivals." 
"  The  practice  of  joining  in  church  music,"  he  thinks,  "  has 
very  much  conduced  to  this.  For  as  soon  as  they  had  once 
commenced  singing  in  public,  in  only  one  little  church  in 
London,  immediately  not  only  the  churches  in  the  neigh- 
bourhood, but  even  the  towns  far  distant,  began  to  vie  with 
each  other  in  the  same  practice.  You  may  now  sometimes 
see  at  Paul's  Cross,  after  the  service,  six  thousand  persons, 
old  and  young,  of  both  sexes,  all  singing  together  and 
praising  God.  This  sadly  annoys  the  Mass  priests,  and  the 
devil.  For  they  perceive  that  by  these  means,  the  sacred 
discourses  sink  more  deeply  into  the  minds  of  men,  and 
that  their  kingdom  is  weakened  and  shaken  at  almost  every 
1  Chron.  Belg.,  No.  DCCCXXIV,  ii,  p.  643. 


TO  THE  RELIGIOUS  CHANGES  509 

note."  Then  in  sinister  and  cynical  reference  to  the  great 
fines  imposed  for  hearing  Mass,  he  continued:  "There  is 
nothing,  however,  of  which  they  have  any  right  to  com- 
plain: for  the  Mass  has  never  been  more  highly  prized 
within  my  memory :  each  being  now  valued,  to  every  indi- 
vidual spectator,  at  not  less  than  200  crowns."  x 

In  London,  therefore,  the  Reformation  took  hold  much 
more  rapidly,  and  more  in  accordance  with  the  Council's 
wishes.  Nevertheless,  the  fickle,  ignorant  mob  quickly 
went  in  advance  of  the  caution  displayed  by  responsible 
rulers.  Though  the  results  of  the  mob's  action  might  not 
have  been  in  themselves  distasteful  to  the  inclinations  of 
their  betters,  the  methods  employed  to  secure  them  could 
not  but  be  alarming.  An  incomplete  jotting  in  Machyn's 
diary  is  suggestive;  other  entries  are  plain  enough  to 
understand.  "  The  time  afore  Bartholomewtide  and  after, 
was  all  the  roods  and  Marys  and  Johns  and  many  other  of 
the  church  goods,  both  copes,  crosses,  censers,  altar-cloths, 
rood-cloths,  books,  banners,  books  and  banner-stays,  wain- 
scot, with  much  other  gear,  about  London "    What  is 

here  wanting  may  thus  be  supplied.  On  21st  August,  1559, 
the  royal  Visitors  sat  at  St.  Bride's,  and  the  churchwardens 
were  sworn  to  bring  in  a  true  inventory  of  church  goods. 
On  23rd  August,  "  the  Visitor  sat  at  St.  Michael  in  Corn- 
hill,  likewise  for  the  church  goods."  On  24th  August  was 
the  great  civic  fair  at  Smithfield.  The  traditional  bonfires, 
which  helped  to  celebrate  the  festival,  were  replenished 
with  the  spoils  from  the  churches,  and  Machyn  tells  us  that 
as  the  Lord  Mayor  was  returning  through  Cheapside  from 
Smithfield,  "  against  Ironmonger  Lane,  and  against  St. 
Thomas  Acres,  two  great  [bonfires]  of  roods  and  Marys 
and  Johns  and  other  images,  there  they  were  burned  with 
great  wonder  .  .  .  and  the  25  th  day  of  August,  at  St. 
Botolph's  without  Bishopsgate,  the  rood,  Mary  and  John, 
[patrons  of  that]  church,  and  books;  and  there  was  a 
fellow  within  the  church[?  yard]  made  a  sermon  at  the 
burning  of  the  church  goods  .  .  .  threw  in  certain  books 
1  1  Zur.,  No.  30. 


510  ATTITUDE  OF  THE  LAITY 

into  the  fire,  and  there  they  [took  away  the]  cross  of  wood 
that  stood  in  the  churchyard.  .  .  ."  On  16th  September, 
this  orgy  of  destruction  was  still  in  progress,  for  Machyn 
says  that  on  that  date  "  was  the  rood,  and  Mary  and  John 
and  Saint  Magnus  burned  at  the  corner  of  Fish  Street,  and 
other  things."  In  a  series  of  extracts  of  letters  sent  abroad, 
now  preserved  in  the  Harleian  Collection  of  MSS.,  is  a 
passage  corroborating  the  tailor-diarist.  On  29th  August, 
1559,  the  unknown  writer  records  that  "  since  the  day  before 
our  Bartlemewe  Fair,  even  every  day  we  have  had  such 
bonfires  that  passeth  all  the  blazes  that  were  made  for  the 
winning  of  St.  Quintin's  [1557];  for  all  our  church  patrons, 
Maries,  Johns,  roods,  and  all  the  rabblement  of  the  Pope's 
ornaments  were  sent  to  Terra  Santa  in  this  fiery 
sacrifice."  l 

Many  years  later  (1575),  Sir  Richard  Shelley  penned  a 
letter  from  abroad  to  Lord  Burghley,  wherein,  recalling  a 
conversation  during  Mary's  reign,  he  has  put  on  record  an 
interesting  forecast  and  estimate  of  such  doings.  Explain- 
ing the  reasons  for  his  remaining  abroad  in  1559  for 
purposes  of  personal  business,  he  continued :  "  But  while  I 
tarried  in  Antwerp  longer  than  I  had  thought  .  .  .  there 
came  news  that  the  Crucifix,  being  honoured  (as  the 
abridgement  of  all  Christian  Faith)  in  the  Queen's  Chapel 
and  Closet  by  her  most  Excellent  Majesty,  and  by  your 
Lordships  of  her  most  honourable  Council,  nevertheless  in 
Smithfield  broken  in  pieces  and  burned  in  bonfires;  which 
made  me  call  to  remembrance  that  I  had  heard  your 
Lordship  say  to  the  old  Lord  Paget  (that  God  forgive) ;  to 
whom  pretended  he  that  Queen  Mary  of  famous  memory 
had  returned  the  realm  wholly  Catholic,  your  Lordship 
answered :  '  My  Lord,  you  are  therein  so  far  deceived  that 
I  fear  rather  an  inundation  of  the  contrary  part,  so  uni- 
versal a  boiling  and  bubbling  I  see  of  stomachs  that  cannot 
yet  digest  the  crudity  of  that  time.'  That  saying  of  your 
Lordship,  upon  the  news  of  burning  the  Crucifix  I  called 
to  remembrance ;  and  albeit  I  was  encouraged  to  come 
1  Harl.  MS.  169,  No.  2,  f.  32. 


TO  THE  RELIGIOUS  CHANGES  511 

home  with  remembrance  of  my  service  done  to  her  Majesty 
in  the  time  of  her  adversity  .  .  .  yet,  finally,  I  was  feared 
with  that  fury  of  the  people;  and  then  saw  that  your 
Lordship  foresaw  the  wind  and  tide  so  strong  that  way,  that 
I  determined  .  .  .  secedere  .  .  .  duni  Mae  silescerent  turbae."  l 

Another  contemporary  record  of  these  excesses  may  here 
be  quoted.  Speaking  of  the  great  change,  the  writer  says: 
"  Lastly,  certain  Articles  were  published  touching  matters 
of  religion,  and  commissioners  (for  whose  authority  a 
special  Act  was  made)  to  visit  every  diocese  in  the  realm, 
and  to  establish  religion  according  to  the  same  Articles. 
The  orders  which  these  commissioners  set  were  both  em- 
braced and  executed  with  great  fervency  of  the  common 
people,  especially  in  beating  down,  breaking  and  burning 
images  which  had  been  erected  in  the  churches ;  declaring 
themselves  no  less  disordered  in  defacing  of  them,  than 
they  had  been  immoderate  and  excessive  in  adoring  them 
before;  yea,  in  many  places  walls  were  rased,  windows 
were  dashed  down,  because  some  images  (little  regarding 
what)  were  painted  on  them.  And  not  only  images,  but 
rood-lofts,  relics,  sepulchres,  books,  banners,  copes,  vest- 
ments, altar-cloths  were  in  divers  places  committed  to  the 
fire;  and  that  with  such  shouting  and  applause  of  the  vul- 
gar sort,  as  if  it  had  been  the  sacking  of  some  hostile  city. 
So  difficult  it  is,  when  men  run  out  of  one  extreme  not  to 
run  into  the  other,  but  to  make  a  stable  stay  in  the  mean. 
The  extremes  in  religion  are  superstition,  and  profane 
either  negligence  or  contempt;  between  which  extremes  it 
is  extremely  hard  to  hit  the  mean."2 

At  last  the  danger  likely  to  accrue  from  this  failure  to 
"  make  a  stable  stay  in  the  mean,"  as  also  the  vandalism, 
separately  or  together,  made  an  impression  on  the  Council, 
and  a  Proclamation  was  issued  on  19th  September,  1560, 

1  Harl.  MS.  4992,  No.  4,  f.  7. 

2  Ibid.,  6021,  No.  3,  f.  120.  Having  compared  this  manuscript  with 
Speed,  Stowe,  and  Holinshed,  I  find  it  is  by  some  other  author,  but 
follows  closely  on  their  common  lines.  It  is  both  interesting  and 
descriptive. 


512  ATTITUDE  OF  THE  LAITY 

"  against  breaking  or  defacing  monuments  of  antiquity 
being  set  up  in  churches  or  other  public  places,  for  memory 
and  not  for  superstition."1  It  had  at  last  dawned  upon 
the  Council  that,  to  quote  the  proclamation,  "  sundry 
people,  partly  ignorant,  party  malicious  or  covetous,"  had 
not  confined  their  attentions  merely  to  roods  and  images 
of  saints,  but  had,  after  the  nature  of  their  kind,  without 
discrimination  and  from  wanton  love  of  destruction,  "of 
late  years  spoiled  and  broken  certain  ancient  monuments, 
some  of  metal,  some  of  stone  ...  to  the  slander  of  such  as 
either  gave  or  had  charge  in  times  past  only  to  deface 
monuments  of  idolatry  and  false  feigned  images."  The 
concern  displayed  by  the  Council  was  not  so  much  for  the 
loss  of  antiquities  as  for  a  possible  loss  of  evidence  of 
descent  of  ancient  families :  hence  the  sudden  awakening 
to  the  wholesale  destruction  that  would  seem  to  have  been 
going  on,  and  the  imposition  of  heavy  penalties  for  any 
further  repetition  of  the  offence,  and  an  order  to  incum- 
bents and  churchwardens  to  repair  the  damage  as  far  as 
might  be  possible. 

But  while  the  lower  orders  gave  rein  to  their  insensate 
love  of  plunder  and  destruction,  and  so  played  into  the  hands 
of  the  directing  spirits  of  the  Reformation,  the  more  sober 
portion  of  the  population  found  the  argument  directed 
against  their  pockets  the  most  telling  and  convincing.  The 
Act  of  Uniformity  enforced  attendance  at  the  new  form  of 
worship  on  Sundays  and  holydays,  except  a  reasonable 
excuse  for  absence  could  be  shown,  under  penalty  of  the 
censures  of  the  Church,  and  a  fine  of  twelve  pence  for  each 
abstention.2  When  the  pressure  of  this  fine  began  to  be 
felt,  conformity  to  the  new  order  increased.  The  con- 
formity of  so  many  of  their  clergy,  would,  also,  no  doubt 
have  great  influence  with  many  of  the  laity,  who  for  a 
generation  had  not  had  the  benefit  of  the  regular  instruc- 
tion which  had  been  imparted  to  their  fathers.  Dodd, 
speaking  of  the  number  who  conformed  in  the  reigns  of 
Henry  VIII  and  Edward  VI,  while  admitting  their  "  sur- 
1  P.R.O.  Dom.  Eliz.,  XIII,  No.  32.  2  1  Eliz.,  c.  2. 


TO  THE  RELIGIOUS  CHANGES  513 

prising  complaisance  and  tameness,"  says  that  it  "was 
rather  a  corruption  of  morals  than  an  error  in  Faith  that 
occasioned  their  defection  .  .  .  conforming  more  for  bread 
than  out  of  principle."1  In  the  same  way,  of  those  who 
copied  their  example  in  Elizabeth's  reign,  "  many  who 
were  cordially  affected  to  the  interest  of  the  Church  of 
Rome  dispensed  with  themselves  as  to  outward  conformity; 
and  it  was  strongly  believed  that  the  greatest  part  com- 
plied against  their  consciences,  and  would  have  been  ready 
for  another  turn,  if  the  Queen  had  died  while  that  race  of 
incumbents  lived."2  Lingard,  also,  truly  states:  "Among 
the  lower  order  of  churchmen,  there  were  many  who  took 
the  oath,  some  through  partiality  for  the  new  doctrines, 
some  through  the  dread  of  poverty,  and  others  with  the 
hope  of  seeing  in  a  short  time  another  religious  revolu- 
tion."3 

The  laity,  seeing  their  old  clergy  in  so  many  instances 
continuing  to  officiate,  and  not  being  sufficiently  versed  in 
theology  and  the  controversial  aspect  of  the  differences  of 
belief  which  had  arisen,  saw  little  or  no  harm  in  continuing 
to  frequent  the  ministrations  of  those  who  till  then  had 
supplied  their  spiritual  wants.  The  main  difference,  so  far 
as  they  perceived,  lay  in  the  use  of  English  rather  than 
Latin;  and,  although  many  may  possibly  have  regretted 
the  abolition  of  what  they  had  been  accustomed  to,  the 
alteration  did  not  seem  necessarily  to  be  so  important  as 
to  call  for  violent  protest.  It  pertained  to  the  domain  of 
changeable  discipline,  not  to  unchangeable  Faith.  More- 
over, even  Elizabeth  was  willing  to  show  herself  accom- 
modating in  this  matter,  and  sanctioned  the  use  of  Latin 
in  the  services  conducted  in  collegiate  churches  and  in  the 
Universities.4    The  policy  of  drift,  coupled  with  the   un- 

1  Hist.,  ed.  1789,  vol.  ii,  p.  7.  2  Ibid.,  p.  8. 

3  Hist,  of  Engl.,  vii,  p.  358. 

4  P.R.O.  Dom.  Eliz.,  xvi,  No.  7, 12th  January,  1 560-1 :  "...  We  will 
that  where  we  have  caused  our  Book  of  Common  Service  to  be  trans- 
lated into  the  Latin  tongue  for  the  use  and  exercise  of  such  students 
and  others  learned  in  the  Latin  tongue :  we  will  also  that  by  your 

L  L 


514  ATTITUDE  OF  THE  LAITY 

settling  of  consciences  during  the  religious  upheavals  of 
the  past  thirty  years,  accounts  for  much  of  what  happened 
following  on  the  pecuniary  pressure  of  the  Act  of  Uni- 
formity on  the  laity,  and  the  harder  measure  of  depriva- 
tion, imprisonment,  and  death  dealt  out  by  it  to  unwilling 
clergy. 

Sometimes,  then,  we  hear  of  a  district  or  a  town  show- 
ing a  remarkable  promptitude  in  falling  in  with  the  new 
order,  as  was  the  case,  for  instance,  at  Shrewsbury,  whence 
Sir  Hugh  Paulet  wrote  to  Cecil  as  early  as  25th  June, 
1 559:  "  There  is  a  great  lack  of  Books  of  Common  Prayer 
in  these  parts;  yet  with  such  as  are  gotten  here,  the  service 
is  set  forth  in  this  town  and  the  [district]  about  it  as  far 
as  the  books  will  extend  unto,  and  the  official  hath  pro- 
mised to  see  the  rest  supplied;  finding  also  the  Justices  of 
Peace  and  men  of  worship  of  this  shire  (the  more  part  of 
them  being  here  with  me  this  last  week)  very  conformable 
and  forward  thereunto."  x  Further  time  was  to  give  plenty 
of  occasion  for  modifying  this  estimate  of  Shropshire  con- 
formity ;  but  the  readiness  of  the  magistrates  to  subscribe 
was  emulated  by  their  brethren  of  the  Essex  Commission 
of  Peace,  eighteen  of  whom  took  the  oath  of  Supremacy 
before  the  Earl  of  Oxford  at  Chelmsford  on  26th  August, 
1559,2  thereby  renouncing  their  allegiance  to  the  Roman 
See  and  Church.  Contemporary  documents  still  exist  prov- 
ing the  pressure  applied  to  those  who  had  become  entangled 
in  the  meshes  of  the  law  through  their  adherence  to  the 
old  form  of  worship.  They  are  not  very  numerous,  but  they 
are  doubtless  merely  the  survivals  out  of  large  numbers  of 
similar  "  submissions."  They  are  full  of  pathos  too,  for 
they  represent  the  mastery  of  opportunism  over  conscience 
and  conviction:  they  do  not  ring  true  and  sincere;  and  in 
some  cases  subsequent  reconciliation  with  Rome  furnishes 

wisdom  and  discretions  ye  prescribe  some  good  orders  for  the  col- 
legiate churches,  to  which  we  have  permitted  the  use  of  the  divine 
service  and  prayer  in  the  Latin  tongue,  in  such  sort  as  ye  shall  con- 
sider to  be  most  meet  to  be  used." 

1  P.R.O.  Dom.  Eliz.,  iv,  No.  63.  2  Ibid.,  vi,  No.  29  i. 


TO  THE  RELIGIOUS  CHANGES  515 

overwhelming  evidence  of  the  real  motives  for  compliance, 
namely,  vague  fear  of  consequences,  and  weakness  of  reso- 
lution. Thus,  Thomas  Lardge,  who  found  himself  in  prison 
for  that  he  "at  Boreham  in  Essex,  in  the  house  of  Sir 
Thomas  Wharton  .  .  .  heard  the  old  service  commonly- 
called  the  Mass,"  whereby  he  had  "  run  in  the  danger  and 
penalty  therefor  provided  .  .  .  either  the  payment  of  an 
hundred  marks,  or  else  imprisonment  by  the  space  of  six 
months,  the  payment  of  which  money  were  my  utter  un- 
doing, and  the  time  of  so  long  imprisonment,  my  weak 
body  much  subject  to  sickness  with  mine  age  considered, 
will  bring  great  danger  to  my  life,"  moved  by  these  menaces 
to  body  and  purse,  he  craved  "  for  mercy  and  pity  trusting 
.  .  .  hereafter  to  live  as  an  obedient  subject."  l  William 
Travers,  confined  in  the  Marshalsea,  "  in  regard  of  sickness 
which  he  is  fallen  into  through  his  long  imprisonment, 
humbly  craveth  enlargement  upon  his  submission,"  which 
he  subsequently  duly  made.2  Drew  Drury  signed  a  sub- 
mission on  15th  January,  1 561-2,  but  its  terms  leave  us  in 
doubt  as  to  the  cause  of  offence; 3  there  may,  however,  not 
improbably  be  some  connection  between  this  infringement 
of  law,  and  an  information  laid  at  some  later  date  against 
"  Doctor  Drewrie,  dwelleth  at  Wivenhoe  near  Colchester 
upon  the  water's  side,  and  there  dwelleth  one  Lone,  a 
mariner,  whom  he  maintaineth;  this  Lone  is  a  shipmaster 
and  carrieth  news  and  bringeth  news  (as  it  seemeth).  He 
carried  Mrs.  Awdley's  son  and  a  Mass  priest  from  her 
house,  over  the  sea  to  Douay."4  Thomas  Parker,  a  de- 
pendent of  Sir  Edward  Waldegrave's,  found  himself  in 
prison  for  too  faithfully  serving  his  master.  Like  Thomas 
Lardge,  fear  for  his  health  and  for  his  purse  brought  him 
to  abject  submission.5  These  victims,  however,  were  of 
small  account  compared  with  the  gentry  and  nobility  who 

1  P.R.O.  Dom.  Eliz.,  XII,  No.  13.  2  Ibid.,  XV,  Nos.  48,  49. 

3  Ibid.,  xvi,  No.  4. 

4  P.R.O.  Dom.  Eliz.,  cxx,  Nos.  26,  27,  ?  1577.    "An  advertisement 
touching  certain  Papists  in  Essex,"  etc. 

5  Ibid.,  Add.,  XI,  No.  9,  ?  April,  1561. 


516  ATTITUDE  OF  THE  LAITY 

got  into  trouble  for  similar  causes.  These  classes  were  to 
prove  more  obstinate;  but  even  amongst  them  are  to  be 
found  instances  of  compliance  on  compulsion.  Thus,  Lord 
Hastings  of  Loughborough,  called  "  a  strong  Romanist,"  ' 
in  which  Faith  he  died  in  1573,  was  imprisoned  in  1561  for 
having  been  found  hearing  Mass.  On  5th  July  in  that  year 
he  wrote  to  the  Lords  of  the  Council  a  somewhat  abject 
appeal  for  mercy,  offering  his  submission,  and  thereupon 
was  released,2  but  the  record  of  the  commissioners  ap- 
pointed to  administer  the  oath  of  Supremacy  leaves  no 
doubt  as  to  Lord  Hastings'  repugnance  to  it,  though  in  the 
end  he  yielded,  as  also  did  Sir  Thomas  Wharton.  "  The 
oath  he  [Wharton]  could  have  been  contented  to  have 
foreborne."  Another  prisoner,  Ryce,  "  using  very  reverent 
and  humble  talk,  refused  nevertheless  to  give  presently  the 
oath ;  whom  after  all  the  ways  and  reasons  made  unto  him 
that  we  could  devise  to  persuade  him  thereunto,  and 
thereby  to, receive  the  benefits  of  the  Queen's  clemency, 
seeing  him  with  tears  in  his  eyes  to  stand  therein  and  to 
desire  a  time  to  consult  and  to  persuade  with  himself,  we 
left  him  in  the  same  state  and  terms  we  found  him  in,  pro- 
mising nevertheless  we  would  advertise  your  lordships  of 
his  humble  demeanour  and  of  his  request  also  for  time  of 
deliberation." 3  At  a  later  date,  Gabriel  Goodman, ;Dean  of 
Westminster,  was  employed  on  a  favourite  method  with 
the  Reformers,  that  of  holding  conference  with  prisoners 
on  religious  grounds,  for  the  purpose  of  "  resolving  "  their 
scruples.  In  the  summer  of  1567  he  tried  his  hand  with 
Sir  Thomas  Cornwallis,  Mr.  Provost  (?  Dr.  Henry  Cole, 
late  Provost  of  Eton),  and  Mr.  Harpsfield,  but  he  reports  : 
"  Sorry  I  was  that  it  had  no  better  success,  considering 
how  willing  Sir  Thomas  was  to  be  resolved,  so  it  might 
have  been  with  his  conscience."  He  found  the  subject  of 
his  solicitude  while  upholding  the  spiritual  Supremacy  of 
the  Pope,  "doth  utterly  mislike  of"  any  such  Supremacy 

1  Diet.  Nat.  Biogr.,  xxv,  p.  113. 

2  P.R.O.  Dom.  Eliz.,  xvm,  Nos.  8  and  19,  July  16th,  1561. 

3  Ibid. 


TO  THE  RELIGIOUS  CHANGES  517 

"  in  matters  temporal,"  and  in  other  respects  would  be 
willing  to  see  certain  things  "  of  manners  and  due  disci- 
pline "  changed ;  and,  according  to  the  Dean's  report,  even 
as  regards  doctrine  there  were  things  "  he  could  wish  to  be 
altered  to  the  better,  and  to  the  order  of  the  primitive 
Church."  His  case  seemed  so  hopeful,  that  the  Dean  urged 
patience  with  him,  and  in  the  end  he  was  cajoled  into  sub- 
mission.1 Next  year  William  Roper  was  restored  to  favour 
after  signing  the  needful  papers.  His  fault  had  been  ag- 
gravated by  aiding  the  English  fugitives  in  Louvain  and 
elsewhere  on  the  Continent  with  money,  thereby  enabling 
Harding,  Dormer,  and  others  to  attack  the  established  re- 
ligion by  their  writings.2  The  value  of  this  submission  may 
be  gauged  by  the  fact  that  only  a  year  later,  when  Justices 
and  ex-Justices  of  Peace  were  required  to  subscribe  the 
oath  of  Supremacy,  this  gentleman  was  too  ill  to  attend 
the  sessions.  But  he  did  not  thus  escape  the  importunity 
of  his  brother  magistrates,  three  of  whom  repaired  to  his 
house  to  receive  his  declaration.  He  begged  to  be  excused 
on  the  plea  that  he  was  "  a  man  very  aged  and  likewise 
subject  to  great  infirmities  and  diseases,  and  so  making 
unto  us  lamentable  request  ...  to  bear  with  him  touching 
his  conscience,"  professing  himself  nevertheless  a  faithful 
subject,  they  contented  themselves  with  taking  recognis- 
ances of  him  of  200  marks  for  his  good  behaviour/  In  the 
early  part  of  1574  the  Council  succeeded  in  securing  the 
Earl  of  Southampton's  submission;  but  although  it  was 
only  in  general  terms,  doubtless  the  powerful  position  of 
this  nobleman  forced  them  to  be  content  with  so  unsatis- 
factory a  performance.4  The  Council  were  not,  however, 
always  so  successful  in  coercing  their  prisoners.  There  is 
in  the  Record  Office 5  the  submission  to  be  extracted  from 

1  P.R.O.  Dom.  Eliz.,  xliii,  Nos.  9,  10,  10  i. 

2  Ibid.,  xlvii,  No.  7,  8th  July,  1568. 

3  Ibid.,  Lix,  No.  2>7,  2°th  November,  1569.    The  memorandum  of 
recognisance  is  in  vol.  Lix,  No.  37  ii. 

*  Lansd.  MS.  16,  Nos.  22,  23. 
5  Dom.  Eliz.,  xlvii,  No.  12  i. 


5i8  ATTITUDE  OF  THE  LAITY 

Sir  John  Southworth,  a  great  landowner  in  Cheshire.  It  is 
somewhat  general  in  terms,  but  though  it  might  be  con- 
sidered satisfactory  to  the  Council,  Sir  John  "  refused  to 
submit  himself  to  any  such  subscription;  his  conscience 
cannot  serve  him  in  most  points  of  that  order."  So  wrote 
Archbishop  Parker,  to  whose  discretion  the  refractory 
knight  had  been  committed.1  Another  instance  of  this 
failure  to  coerce  great  laymen  into  submission  is  furnished 
by  the  case  of  Sir  Thomas  Fitzherbert.  Grindal  reported 
to  Cecil  that  he  was  "  a  very  stiff  man."  His  gaolers  were 
nevertheless  anxious  to  release  him  on  easy  terms,  and  so 
perhaps  to  wheedle  him  into  some  outward  show  of  com- 
pliance. They  offered  to  set  him  free  "  if  he  would  be  bound 
...  to  go  orderly  to  the  church  without  binding  him  to 
receive  the  Communion.    That  Sir  Thomas  refused."2 

From  the  reports  of  bishops  and  other  officials  elsewhere 
quoted,  it  is  known  that  the  local  magistrates  were  by  no 
means  sound  as  a  body  in  their  attitude  towards  the  re- 
ligious changes  being  enacted.  This  was  a  source  of  real 
danger,  when  religious  disaffection  was  increasing  and  the 
Rebellion  in  the  North  was  hatching.  It  then  became 
necessary  to  ascertain  precisely  who  were  to  be  relied  upon 
to  support  Elizabeth:  who,  by  reason  of  their  religious 
leanings,  were  to  be  ranked  as  suspect.  Accordingly,  on 
the  eve  of  the  outbreak,  a  form  of  subscription  was  devised 
to  be  administered  to  all  Justices  of  Peace  throughout  the 
country.3  This  document  was  subscribed  by  a  very  large 
number  of  Justices  in  every  county  throughout  the  king- 

1  Parker  Corresp.,  Nos.  252  and  253.  A  note  says,  "he  afterwards 
consented  to  sign  the  submission.  In  the  next  year  (1569),  however, 
he  was  taken  up  and  committed  to  the  custody  of  the  Bishop  of  London, 
and  afterwards  of  the  Dean  of  St.  Paul's."  It  is  only  reliance  upon 
Strype,  so  frequently  inaccurate  (cf.  Strype's  Parker,  iii,  pp.  525-6), 
that  seems  to  justify  the  notion  of  submission :  this  nowhere  appears. 
But  he  was  released  on  the  undertaking  not  to  harbour  persons  ob- 
noxious to  the  Council — in  other  words,  priests.  This,  of  course,  he 
could  easily  promise. 

2  Lansd.  MS.  6,  No.  56,  12  July,  1563. 

3  Cf.  P.R.O.  Dom.  Eliz.,  xlviii,  No.  69. 


TO  THE  RELIGIOUS  CHANGES  519 

dom.  But  in  perusing  their  names,1  some  thousand  in 
number,  any  reader  versed  in  the  biographies  of  the  period 
will  be  struck  by  the  large  number  of  names  of  men  who 
are  known  to  have  been  loyal  Catholics,  and  who  later 
proved  themselves  to  be  so.  How  they  reconciled  it  with 
their  consciences  to  sign  this  declaration  at  the  end  of  1569 
must  remain  a  mystery,  except  the  supposition  be  adopted 
that  they  did  so  by  way  of  dissociating  themselves  from 
the  Northern  rebels,  and  of  proclaiming  their  loyalty  to  the 
throne.  There  were,  of  course,  exceptions  to  this  spiritual 
subservience,  as  in  the  case  of  William  Roper,  already  re- 
ferred to.  John  Scudamore,  of  Kenchurch,  Hereford,  Esq., 
J. P.,  "  did  there  and  then  expressly  and  more  earnestly 
than  became  him  refuse  to  subscribe,  which  he  had  also 
done  by  his  letters," — so  reported  his  brethren  of  the  bench. 
Both  he  and  others  as  well  even  refused  to  be  bound  in 
recognisances.  Scudamore  had  written :  "  I  am  .  .  .  resolved 
not  to  subscribe  nor  yet  to  be  bound  of  the  good  abearing 
simply.  Marry,  if  it  will  please  you  to  take  my  bond  of 
100  marks  for  the  good  abearing,  saving  coming  to  church 
or  not  coming,  and  saving  matters  of  religion  or  any 
manner  thing  touching  the  same,  or  touching  my  poor 
conscience  therein,  I  can  be  contented  ...  I  do  not  refuse 
of  obstinacy  but  for  conscience'  sake."  This  manly,  straight- 
forward letter,  breathing  a  spirit  of  Christian  forbearance 
and  forgiveness  of  injuries,  was  of  no  avail,  and  the  writer 
subsequently  suffered  much  persecution.2  James  Courtney, 
Esq.,  in  the  county  of  Devon,  while  protesting  his  loyalty 
to  Elizabeth,  endeavoured  to  escape  the  oath  on  the  plea 
that  its  imposition  was  not  applicable  to  him;3  but  such 
subterfuges  were  never  allowed  to  be  of  avail.  The  famous 
lawyer,  Edmund  Plowden,  of  course  made  a  better  fight  for 

1  P.R.O.  Dom.  Eliz.,  Lix,  Nos.  20;  21  i  and  ii ;  22;  25  i;  36;  37  i ; 
39 ;  44 ;  45  ;  46  i ;  48  i ;  49  i  and  ii ;  50 ;  67 ;  LX,  Nos.  1  i  and  ii ;  12  i ; 
13 ;  17  i ;  18  i ;  21  i ;  22  i ;  27  i ;  30  i ;  38  i ;  39  i  and  ii ;  47  and  i  and 
ii ;  531  and  ii ;  62  i,  ii,  iii,  iv ;  63  i ;  lxvi,  Nos.  12  i ;  19  i  and  xiii ;  28 ; 
LXVIl,  Nos.  24  i;  57  i  and  ii ;  79;  80. 

2  Cf.  ibid.,  LX,  No.  22  and  22  ii.  3  Ibid.,  LX,  No.  39  and  39  ii. 


520  ATTITUDE  OF  THE  LAITY 

himself,  claiming  time  to  study  the  question  from  all  points 
of  view;  having  taken  his  time  accordingly,  which  of  course 
could  hardly  be  denied  him,  he  treated  his  brother  Justices 
to  a  learned  and  lengthy  disquisition,  wherein  he  admitted 
that  he  had  attended  the  Protestant  service  occasionally; 
but,  as  to  subscribing,  "  he  said  he  could  not  with  safe  con- 
science "  do  so,  "  for  he  said  he  could  not  subscribe  but 
belief  must  precede  his  subscription,  and  therefore  he  said 
great  impiety  should  be  in  him  if  he  should  subscribe  in 
full  affirmance  or  belief  of  those  things  in  which  he  is 
scrupulous  in  belief,"  assuring  the  Council  "  that  he  did  not 
upon  stubbornness  or  wilfulness  forbear  to  subscribe,  but 
only  upon  scrupulosity  of  conscience."  He  escaped  further 
molestation  than  that  implied  in  entering  into  recognisances 
for  200  marks  "  for  his  good  abearing."  '  As  might  be  ex- 
pected, Lord  Morley  refused  to  take  the  oaths,2  and  his 
example  was  followed  by  other  territorial  magnates  like 
Sir  Henry  Bedingfeld,  and  Thomas  Rous,  Esq.,  in  Suffolk,3 
or  Sir  John  Arundell  of  Lanherne,  in  Cornwall.4  It  is  clear 
from  a  communication  concerning  the  Justices  of  Sussex, 
made  a  year  later,  that  the  subscription  of  the  oath  did  not 
mean  very  much,  and  that  many  under  one  pretext  or 
another  had  escaped  making  it.5  Time,  of  course,  wrought 
a  gradual  change  in  the  minds  of  men  who  were  Catholics 
at  Elizabeth's  accession ;  their  children  were  brought  up  in 
Protestant  principles,  and  so  lost  the  Catholic  tradition; 
but  on  the  whole,  the  verdict  might  be  registered  that 
"  once  a  Papist,  always  a  Papist " ;  or,  as  the  same  idea  was 
expressed  much  about  this  time,  "  sepulchrum  quantumvis 
dealbatur,  sepulchrum  est ;  vetusque  et  senex  Papista,  licet 
plurimum  veritatis  verbo  testetur,  Papista  est."6  Hence 
even  the  acceptance  of  the  oath  did  not  engender  trust  or 
confidence;  or  if  it  did,  only  too  frequently  it  was  proved 

1  P.R.O.  Dom.  Eliz.,  LX,  No.  47  and  ii.        2  Ibid.,  LX,  No.  57  ii. 
3  Ibid.,  LX,  No.  62  ii  and  iii.  4  Ibid.,  lxvii,  No.  57  and  ii. 

5  Ibid.,  lxxiv,  No.  44,  November,  1570. 

6  Lansd.  MS.  1 5,  No.  69.    Maurice  O'Brien,  Bishop-elect  of  Killaloe 
to  Lord  Burghley,  24th  October,  1572. 


TO  THE  RELIGIOUS  CHANGES  521 

to  have  been  misplaced.  One  of  Lord  Burghley's  many 
correspondents  on  one  occasion  reminded  him  that  "  the 
Papists  in  this  realm  find  too  much  favour  in  the  Court. 
As  long  as  that  continueth,  practising  [i.e.,  plotting]  will 
never  have  end.  The  double-faced  gentlemen,  who  will  be 
Protestants  in  the  Court,  and  in  the  country  secret  Papists, 
[aquam]  frigidam  suffundunt." l  This  insincerity  or  time 
serving,  it  may  be  added,  never  really  deceived  the  leaders 
of  the  Reformation.  For  example,  Thomas  Cooper,  Bishop 
of  Lincoln,  analysed  the  adherents  of  the  old  order  thus  in  a 
sermon :  "Oi  Papists  there  be  three  kinds.  1.  The  open  Papist 
which  dwelleth  among  us  and  forsaketh  our  Communion  .  .  . 
manifestly  protesting  that  we  be  departed  from  the  Catholic 
Church,  and  therefore  that  they  may  not  in  conscience  join 
with  us.  The  second  sort  are  fleeing  Papists,  which  fling 
over  the  sea  and  return  again  .  .  .  with  traitorous  mean- 
ing ...  to  steal  away  the  hearts  of  the  subjects  from  the 
Prince  and  magistrates  &c.  .  .  .  The  third  kind  ...  is  the 
cunning  Papist,  which  can  hide  himself  under  the  colour  of 
loyalty  and  obedience  to  the  laws,  and  will  needs  be  ac- 
counted a  faithful,  true  and  good  subject,  and  yet  carrieth 
in  his  bosom  in  effect  the  same  persuasion  that  the  other 
do,  and  for  fear  of  danger  or  discredit,  they  are  contented 
to  obey  the  law." 2  With  this  description  may  be  compared 
another  "character  of  a  Church-Papist;  i.e.  a  Papist  who 
attends  the  Established  Church  to  avoid  penalties."  The 
writer  of  this  clever  criticism  cynically  says:  "  A  Papist  is 
one  that  parts  religion  between  his  conscience  and  his 
purse,  and  comes  to  church  not  to  serve  God  but  the  King. 
The  fear  of  the  law  makes  him  wear  the  mask  of  the 
Gospel,  which  he  useth,  not  as  a  means  to  save  his  soul  but 
charges.  He  loves  Popery  well,  but  is  loth  to  lose  by  it; 
and  though  he  be  something  scared  by  the  Bulls  of  Rome, 
yet  he  is  struck  with  more  terror  at  the  Apparitor.  Once  a 
month  he  presents  himself  at  the  church  to  keep  off  the 

1  P.R.O.  Dom.  Eliz.,  lxxxi,  No.  52.  Thos.  Assheton  to  Lord  Burgh- 
ley,  23rd  October,  1571. 

2  Lansd.  MS.  945,  f.  172. 


522  ATTITUDE  OF  THE  LAITY 

churchwardens,  and  brings  in  his  body  to  save  his  bail; 
kneels  with  the  congregation,  but  prays  by  himself  and 
asks  God  forgiveness  for  coming  thither.  If  he  be  forced 
to  stay  out  a  sermon,  he  puts  his  hat  over  his  eyes  and 
frowns  out  the  hour;  and  when  he  comes  home,  he  thinks 
to  make  amends  for  his  fault  by  abusing  the  preacher. 
His  main  subtlety  is  to  shift  off  the  Communion,  for  which 
he  is  never  unfurnished  of  a  quarrel,  and  will  be  sure  always 
to  be  out  of  charity  at  Easter.  He  would  make  a  bad 
martyr  and  a  good  traveller,  for  his  conscience  is  so  large 
he  could  never  wander  from  it,  and  in  Constantinople 
would  be  circumcised  with  a  mental  reservation.  His  wife 
is  more  zealous  in  her  devotion  and  therefore  more  costly, 
and  he  bates  her  in  tyres  what  she  stands  him  in  religion."1 
This  cruel  yet  accurate  portrait  is  here  given  as  furnishing 
the  very  keynote  of  the  ultimate  success  of  the  Reforma- 
tion; it  was  the  result  not  of  conviction,  but  of  expediency. 

Notwithstanding  the  oaths  taken  by  Justices  of  Peace 
in  1569,  the  Council  wrote  to  the  Bishop  of  London  in 
1578,  complaining  that,  during  a  recent  royal  progress 
through  several  shires,  the  Queen  had  discovered  on  diligent 
enquiry  "  that  sundry  persons  being  in  commission  of  the 
Peace  within  divers  counties,  have  of  late  years  forborne 
to  come  to  the  church  to  any  Common  Prayer  and  divine 
service;  whereby  not  only  God  is  dishonoured,  [and]  the 
laws  infringed,  but  very  evil  example  given  to  the  common 
sort  of  people." 2 

This  survey,  extending  over  twenty  years  of  Elizabeth's 
reign,  makes  it  easier  to  understand  the  Bishop  of  Carlisle's 
complaint  to  Cecil,  made  early  in  1562,  to  the  effect  that 
"  every  day  men  look  for  a  change  and  prepare  for  the 
same.  The  people  desirous  of  the  same  do  in  manner 
openly  say  and  do  what  they  will  concerning  religion  and 
other  matters  right  perilous,  without  check  or  punishment. 
The  rulers  and  Justices  of  Peace  wink  at  all  things  and 
look  through  the  fingers;   for   my   exhortation    to   have 

1  Harl.  MS.  1221,  No.  5,  f.  65  3,  and  6038,  f.  2. 

2  P.R.O.  Dom.  Eliz.,  xlv,  p.  16. 


TO  THE  RELIGIOUS  CHANGES  523 

such  punished  I  have  had  privy  displeasure  ...  for  punish- 
ing and  depriving  of  certain  evil  men  which  neither  would 
do  their  office  according  to  the  good  laws  of  this  realm, 
neither  acknowledge  the  Queen's  Majesty's  Supremacy, 
neither  yet  obey  me  as  Ordinary.  Such  men  as  these  are 
not  only  supported  and  borne  withal,  but  also  had  in  place 
of  councillors  and  brought  into  open  place;  whereby  those 
of  evil  religion  are  encouraged  to  be  stubborn,  and  they 
which  embrace  the  true  doctrine  defaced  and  discouraged."1 
At  the  same  period,  the  Archbishop  of  York,  when  he  en- 
deavoured to  administer  the  oath  to  the  Yorkshire  Justices, 
found  that  hitherto  they  had  by  some  means  escaped 
taking  it,  and  objected  then  to  do  so.  The  Archbishop 
thought  that  there  must  have  been  "  some  sinister  practices 
touching  that  oath  heretofore,"  and  therefore  suggested  a 
special  commission  "directed  into  these  parts  to  minister 
and  receive  the  oath  as  well  of  all  Justices  of  the  Peace,  as 
of  other  ministers  and  officers  of  the  laity."2  No  doubt  the 
Archbishop  secured  the  commission  he  asked  for,  as  there 
exists  one  issued  to  the  Earl  of  Derby  and  others,  on  the 
lines  suggested,  but  for  the  diocese  of  Chester.3 

Meanwhile,  although  the  Council  were  anxious  about 
securing  conformity  on  the  part  of  acknowledged  Papists, 
they  were  not  unmindful  that  the  progress  of  the  Reforma- 
tion had  its  drawbacks  and  inconveniences.  Grindal,  Bishop 
of  London,  writing  to  Cecil,  reminds  him  that  for  long  he 
had  thought  "  that  in  no  one  thing  the  adversary  hath 
more  advantage  against  us  than  in  the  matter  of  fast,  which 
we  utterly  neglect:  they  have  a  shadow."4  A  successor  of 
his  in  the  See,  Aylmer,  writing  also  to  Cecil,  then  Lord 
Burghley,  about  a  form  of  prayer  for  a  public  fast,  reminds 
him  that  their  enemies  "  commonly  upbraid  us  that  we 
never  fast  and  seldom  pray."  5    This  godless  character  had 

1  P.R.O.  Dom.  Eliz.,  xxi,  No.  13,  14th  January,  1561-2. 

2  Ibid.,  xxi,  No.  27,  25th  January,  1561-2. 

3  Ibid.,  xxiii,  No.  56,  20th  July,  1562. 

1  Lansd.  MS.  6,  No.  68,  21st  August,  1563;  Letter  24  in  Remains. 
5  Ibid.,  30,  No.  49,  22nd  April,  1580. 


524  ATTITUDE  OF  THE  LAITY 

been  perhaps  not  undeservedly  earned ;  and  Cecil,  too,  was 
concerned  about  the  backsliding  of  the  nation  generally  in 
this  matter.  The  State  Papers  of  the  period  contain  many 
evidences  of  his  solicitude  for  the  observance,  but  it  is 
little  short  of  comical  to  realise  that  the  motive  underlying 
his  anxiety  was  not  from  any  wish  to  benefit  his  countrymen 
spiritually,  but  in  the  interests  of  the  fishing  industry.  The 
incident,  however,  shows  the  laxity  and  looseness  of  prin- 
ciple that  was  growing  upon  the  country.  In  February, 
1562-3,  Cecil  had  drawn  up  a  paper  of  arguments  to  prove 
the  necessity  of  restoring  the  Navy  of  England  by  a  greater 
consumption  of  fish,  and  proposing  to  institute  Wednesday 
as  an  extra  abstinence  day.  The  paper,  a  very  lengthy  one, 
shows  copious  corrections  and  emendations  in  his  own 
handwriting,  and  is  exceedingly  interesting,  for  Cecil 
therein  made  a  calculation  as  to  the  effect  the  suppression 
of  the  religious  houses  had  had  on  the  fishing  industry.1 
This  is  followed  by  some  notes  drawn  up  by  Cecil  for  the 
drafting  of  a  Bill  for  observance  of  Fast,2  together  with  the 
text  thereof,3  and  some  calculations  as  to  the  number  of 
fish  days  in  the  year,  also  made  by  Cecil,  amounting  to 
147.4  The  subject  turns  up  from  time  to  time  at  later  dates. 
Thus,  there  exists  an  imperfect  draft  for — amongst  other 
matters — observing  Wednesdays  as  fish  days,  of  the  year 
1568,  corrected  by  Cecil.6  And  yet,  so  careless  were  the 
people  about  obeying  these  royal  orders,  that  the  Company 
of  Fishmongers  was  constrained  to  petition  Parliament  to 
come  to  their  aid;  this  in  1571.  The  document  reminds  the 
Lords  and  Commons  that  notwithstanding  the  publication 
of  a  proclamation  yearly,  the  butchers  did  a  better  trade  in 
Lent  than  the  fishmongers.6  This  resulted  in  an  Act  being 
passed  enforcing  the  observance  of  Wednesday  as  a  fast, 
or,  as  we  should  say,  an  abstinence  day ; 7  and  it  became 

1  Cf.  P.R.O.  Dom.  Eliz.,  xxvil,  No.  71.  3  Ibid.,  No.  72. 

3  Ibid.,  xxvin,  No.  11,  22nd  March,  1562-3. 

4  Ibid.,  xxxi,  No.  42.  5  Lansd.  MS.  10,  No.  23. 

6  P.R.O.  Dom.  Eliz.,  lxxvii,  No.  69. 

7  Ibid.,  lxxviii,  No.  35,  29th  May,  1571. 


TO  THE  RELIGIOUS  CHANGES  525 

part  of  the  duties  of  the  local  magistracy  to  see  that  its 
provisions  were  obeyed/iand  they  had  to  send  in  reports  to 
the  Council  as  to  the  success  of  their  endeavours.  Even  so, 
with  the  loosening  of  the  bonds  of  spiritual  authority,  the 
laxity  continued  to  grow ;  and  a  further  order  "  for  the  better 
observance  of  Lent"  was  issued  in  1575.*  It  will  be  seen, 
therefore,  from  this  summary,  that  on  one  side  and  on  the 
other  the  intentions  of  the  Council  were  met  with  opposi- 
tion; but  while  the  laxity  of  the  Protestants  was  not 
violently  curbed  and  continued  to  increase,  the  earnestness 
of  the  Catholics  in  trying  to  secure  for  themselves  the 
practice  of  their  religion  was  sternly  repressed.  This  por- 
tion of  the  work  of  the  Council  must  now  receive  closer 
attention,  excluding  from  our  purview  the  trouble  created 
by  the  Puritan  element,  and  the  embittered  vestiarian  con- 
troversy as  outside  the  limits  of  this  enquiry.  For  that 
purpose  we  have  to  divest  ourselves  of  modern  notions  and 
accepted  theories,  and  must  endeavour  to  think  in  the 
thoughts  of  the  sixteenth  century.  To-day  it  is  acknow- 
ledged that  no  man  owes  to  any  State  allegiance  outside 
the  province  of  civil  obedience  and  loyalty;  that  for  his 
attitude  towards  questions  of  Faith  and  religious  practice 
he  is  answerable  to  God  alone,  and  the  Jew  and  the  Gentile 
alike  are  free  to  worship  according  to  conscience.  In  the 
sixteenth  century,  however,  such  liberty  was  not  under- 
stood; and  it  belonged  to  English  polity,  as  to  that  of  other 
nations,  to  force  all  subjects  to  worship  God  in  one  way  at 
the  will  of  the  ruler.  Such  a  view  is  to-day  preposterous  ; 
but  if  we  would  understand  our  own  history  of  three  hun- 
dred and  more  years  ago,  we  must  endeavour  to  accept  it 
for  argument's  sake,  as  a  really  existent  factor,  even  though 
we  reject  it  mentally.  It  is  this  point  of  view  that  alone 
justifies  persecution,  whether  it  was  practised  by  Henry, 
Edward,  Mary,  or  Elizabeth.  The  phases  of  belief  and 
practice  represented  by  these  Sovereigns  followed  one 
another  in  quick  succession;   but  the  interval  separating 

1  Cf.  P.R.O.  Dom.  Eliz.,  lxxxvi,  Nos.  21,  22,  27,  28. 

2  Ibid.,  cvi,  No.  70.   Draft,  with  Lord  Burghley's  corrections. 


526  ATTITUDE  OF  THE  LAITY 

them  covered  the  span  of  many  a  life.  Thus,  a  man  of  from 
thirty-five  to  fifty  in  1565  had  known  the  life  of  Catholic 
England  as  it  was  before  the  breach  with  Rome,  when  the 
monasteries  stood  as  they  had  done  for  nigh  a  thousand 
years.  The  majority  of  the  nation,  at  least  that  part  of  it 
which  had  attained  man's  estate  when  Elizabeth  ascended 
the  throne,  had  been  brought  up  in  the  tenets  and  practices 
of  the  Church  of  their  fathers,  and  were  not  likely  to  be 
willing  to  desert  them  at  the  bidding  of  a  Parliament, 
more  especially  having  made  their  peace  with  Rome  after 
the  schism  in  which  they  had  taken  part,  largely  through 
ignorance.  Thus  it  came  about  that  when  Elizabeth's 
Councillors  began  to  enforce  the  new  English  service  and 
to  impose  the  oaths,  the  grown-up  population  of  educated, 
and  therefore  of  ordered  convictions,  refused  to  be  coerced 
into  accepting  oaths,  negations,  forms  of  worship,  of  which 
their  consciences  disapproved.  Hence,  when  the  purpose  of 
Elizabeth's  Council  had  become  manifest  to  those  who 
wished  to  maintain  their  union  with  the  Centre  of  Christen- 
dom, two  courses  were  open.  One  was  to  leave  the  country 
and  seek  freedom  of  conscience  by  exiling  themselves  to  a 
land  where  their  religion  was  safe  from  molestation.  The 
Reformers  who  went  to  Geneva  and  Frankfort  in  Mary's 
reign  acted  on  this  principle ;  and,  under  her  successor,  many 
Catholics,  unwilling  or  fearful  to  come  into  collision  with 
authority,  hastened  to  do  the  same.  In  these  days  no  objec- 
tion would  be  raised  to  so  obvious  a  course;  but  in  the 
sixteenth  century  such  a  method  of  securing  freedom  was 
accounted  as  little  less  than  treason  to  the  land  of  one's 
birth;  and,  in  fact,  no  one  was  permitted  to  leave  the 
country  without  the  sanction  of  the  Government,  and  much 
legislation  was  enacted  to  enforce  this  view. 

On  the  other  hand,  many  practical  difficulties  stood  in 
the  path  of  the  bulk  of  English  Catholics  seeking  relief  in 
this  way.  The  love  of  country  and  home  stands  first;  and 
then  the  ties  of  property  and  all  things  connected  with 
them  put  such  a  solution  out  of  the  question.  Of  those 
who  remained  at  home — the  vast  majority,  it  will  be  re- 


TO  THE  RELIGIOUS  CHANGES  527 

membered — there  were  some  whose  faith  or  constancy  was 
not  proof  against  penalty,  and  who  thought,  for  some  years 
at  least,  that  they  might  show  outward  conformity  to  the 
laws  while  continuing  to  consider  themselves  really  and 
truly  attached  to  Rome;  these  are  the  unfortunate  people 
dubbed  cunning  Papists.  Lastly,  there  were  the  fearless, 
open  Papists,  whose  views  of  their  inherent,  inalienable 
right  to  worship  as  they  thought  fit  and  as  they  had  been 
accustomed,  coincided  with  our  modern  theories  of  free- 
dom. They  held,  as  we  do,  that  the  domains  of  temporal 
and  spiritual  allegiance  stand  apart,  and  need  not  encroach 
one  upon  the  province  of  the  other.  Elizabeth  had  yet  to 
learn  that  the  cunning  Pap  ist  had  to  be  reckoned  with;  and 
her  Council  bent  all  their  efforts,  in  the  early  days  of  her 
reign,  to  coerce  the  open  Papist  into  submission.  The 
drastic  dealings  with  the  clergy  have  already  been  con- 
sidered, and  the  result  shows  that  about  one-fourth  must 
have  ranged  themselves  in  the  ranks  of  open  Papists,  while 
possibly  half,  say  4,000,  while  really  attached  to  Rome,  yet 
for  motives  of  self-interest  or  fear  gave  an  open  adhesion 
to  the  new  order,  and  for  a  time  at  least  might  be  classed 
amongst  the  cunning  Papists,  till  they  lapsed  altogether 
into  acquiescence.  The  remaining  quarter  were,  doubtless, 
more  or  less  sincerely  attached  to  the  principles  of  the 
Reformation. 

Amongst  the  laity,  it  was  really,  as  countless  documents 
prove,  only  the  influential  people  who  engaged  the  serious 
attention  of  the  Council.  The  lower  orders,  in  those  days 
of  small  account,  might  be  trusted  to  follow  the  lead  of 
their  betters.1  Hence  the  names  of  the  poor  do  not  figure 
largely  in  the  prison  returns  of  the  early  years  of  Eliza- 
beth's reign.  It  is  only  after  1580  that  the  strength  of  the 
recusants  in  all  walks  of  life  can  be  gauged  with  any  degree 
of  accuracy.    Till  that  time,  to  argue  as  to  the  proportion  of 

1  "The  common  sort  of  the  people,  who  may  easily  be  brought  to 
conform  themselves  to  the  better  sort  of  them  in  dignity  and  reputa- 
tion, as  they  see  them  bent  to  set  forward." — Bishop  Home  to  Cecil, 
29th  August,  1561.    P.R.O.  Dom.  Eliz.,  xix,  No.  36. 


528  ATTITUDE  OF  THE  LAITY 

Catholics  to  Protestants  by  prison  lists  would  be  extremely 
misleading — as  misleading,  in  fact,  as  the  inferences  drawn 
from  printed  lists  of  deprived  clergy,  as  has  been  shown 
elsewhere. 

The  first  indication  of  repressive  measures  against  the 
liberty  of  the  laity  to  worship  according  to  conscience  is 
conveyed  in  a  note  of  Cecil's,  early  in  1 561.  Jottings  con- 
cerning Anthony  Draycot,  Dr.  John  Ramridge,  and  Bishop 
Bonner  in  connection  with  some  intercepted  correspondence, 
maybe  passed  over;  but  there  follow  these  words:  "Ex- 
amine Etheridge  upon  a  letter  entitled  Unknows,  17  July 
1 560.  Examine  both  Mr.  Walgrave  and  Parker."1  Etheridge 
was  a  well-known  doctor  residing  in  Oxfordshire.  The 
next  scene  is  laid  in  the  Tower  of  London,  where  Sir 
Edward  Walgrave  (or  Waldegrave)  together  with  several 
others,  including  priests,  found  themselves,  "  for  Mass 
matters,"  as  Grindal  states  in  his  letter  to  Cecil,  dated  17th 
April,  1 561,  enclosing  the  examination  of  certain  prisoners. 
The  persons  concerned  were  one  Jolly  and  John  Devon 
alias  Coxe,  priests ;  Dr.  Ramridge,  late  Dean  of  Lichfield ; 
Thomas  Langdon,  "late  a  monk  in  Westminster";  Mrs. 
Parpoynte,  "once  a  nun";  Sir  Edward  and  Lady  Walde- 
grave, Sir  Francis  Englefield,  Mr.  Edward  Thurland,  Sir 
Thomas  and  Lady  Wharton,  two  gentlewomen,  Goodman, 
a  Westminster  bedesman,  and  an  old  woman  named  Parally- 
day.  The  confessions  showed  that  Mass  had  been  said  at 
Borley  and  Newhall  in  Essex,  in  the  Broad  Sanctuary  at 
Westminster,  at  Lady  Carew's,  and  in  Winchester.2  The 
Earl  of  Oxford  made  a  domiciliary  visit  to  Newhall  and 
Borley,  in  the  hope  of  finding  incriminating  documents 
pointing  to  treasonable  practices,  apparently  without  suc- 
cess, and  Sir  Thomas  Wharton  protested  he  could  be  found 
to  be  an  offender  "  only  touching  the  Mass."  At  Sir  Edward 
Waldegrave's  the  Earl  made  a  great  capture  of  church- 
stuff,  the  inventory  of  which  he  forwarded.  Though  exceed- 
ingly interesting,  exigencies  of  space  preclude  its  inclusion 

1  P.R.O.  Dom.  Eliz.,  xvi,  No.  14,  6th  February,  1 560-1. 

2  Ibid.%  XVI,  No.  49,  17th  April,  1561. 


TO  THE  RELIGIOUS  CHANGES  529 

here.1  As  has  been  stated  elsewhere,  Sir  Thomas  Wharton 
and  Parker  were  scared  into  making  their  submission.2 
Even  Lady  Waldegrave  did  not  escape  a  searching  examina- 
tion, not  only  as  regards  dabbling  in  treason,  but  of  help 
given  to  deprived  clergy:  about  how  often  and  where  she 
had  received  Communion,  if  at  all,  since  the  Queen's  acces- 
sion according  to  the  Queen's  laws :  where  and  when  she  had 
heard  Mass.3  And  at  the  same  period  a  list  of  prisoners 
was  drawn  up,  endorsed,  "  The  names  of  the  prisoners  for 
the  Mass  ";  opposite  many  of  the  names  there  was  specially 
added  by  Cecil  the  illuminative  word,  "  Mass."  The  list 
contains  twenty-eight  names.4  In  connection  with  this  epi- 
sode, it  may  be  of  interest  to  mention  that  Sir  Edward 
Waldegrave's  son  was  removed  from  his  father's  care,  and 
entrusted  for  his  education  to  the  Marquess  of  Winchester's 
son.5  The  exact  reason  for  this  arrangement  is  not  alto- 
gether apparent;  but,  at  least,  the  lad  was  being  looked  after 
during  his  father's  imprisonment;  and,  while  under  the  Mar- 
quess's supervision,  there  was  less  chance  that  he  might  be 
spirited  away  to  the  Continent.  The  young,  moreover, 
could  be  utilised  as  hostages  for  the  good  behaviour  of  their 
parents  in  more  ways  than  one.  Thus,  at  the  time  of  the 
Northern  Rising  in  1 569,  Cecil,  not  unwisely,  noted  "  that  in 
Cambridge  and  Oxford  order  be  given  to  stay  all  young  men 
being  the  sons  or  kinsfolk  of  any  of  the  rebels  in  the  North, 
or  of  any  suspected  persons  for  religion." 6 

In  some  cases  the  Council  contented  themselves  with 
leaving  their  victims  at  seeming  liberty,  restricting  them, 
however,  within  certain  defined  territorial   limits.    In  the 

1  P.R.O.  Dom.  Eliz.,  xvi,  No.  50,  and  enclosures  i-iii,  19th  April, 
1561 ;  cf.  also  Nos.  51,  61-68. 

2  Ante,  p.  515-6.  3  P.R.O.  Dom.  Eliz.,  Add.  XI,  No.  7. 

4  Ibid.,  Add.  xi,  No.  8;  cf.  also  Dom.  Eliz.,  xvi,  Nos.  55  and  65; 
xvn,  No.  13,  26th  May,  1561;  xvn,  No.  18,  3rd  June,  1561 ;  xvm, 
No.  3,  3rd  July,  1 561 ;  xvm,  No.  7,  4th  July,  1561. 

5  P.R.O.  Dom.  Eliz.,  xix,  No.  9,  8th  August,  1561.  "Sir  Edward 
Waldegrave's  son  and  heir  is  schooled  with  my  son's  children,  the 
Lord  Chideock  Paulet  [another  Catholic]  in  Sir  Thomas  White's  house." 

6  Ibid.,  LX,  No.  4,  1st  December,  1569. 

MM 


530  ATTITUDE  OF  THE  LAITY 

early  days  this  practice  was  almost  wholly  confined  to 
clerics ; '  but  as  time  elapsed  this  method  of  supervision, 
especially  in  cases  of  prisoners  on  parole,  was  extended  to 
the  laity,  and,  in  fact,  was  then  resorted  to,  for  them  solely. 
But  a  careful  watch  was  kept  on  the  coming  and  going  of 
all  the  Queen's  lieges,  and,  in  addition  to  the  cases  of 
attendance  at  Mass  at  ambassadors'  houses,  already  men- 
tioned, there  are  many  instances  of  "  conventicles "  or 
gatherings  being  interrupted  by  the  Council's  orders  and 
the  Queen's  emissaries.  Thus  the  Council  addressed  a  letter 
to  the  Bishop  of  London,  informing  him  that  "  there  be 
sundry  conventicles  of  evil  disposed  subjects  which  ...  do 
obstinately  not  only  refuse  to  obey  the  laws  .  .  .  (using  to 
have  the  private  Mass  and  other  superstitious  ceremonies 
celebrated  in  their  houses),  but  also  do  make  secret  collec- 
tions of  money  which  they  send  out  of  the  realm  to  the 
maintenance  of  such  as  are  notoriously  known  enemies  to 
the  authority  of  the  Queen  and  her  Crown,"  and  ordered 
him,  through  the  sheriffs,  "  with  speed  [to]  enter  into  the 
houses  at  such  hours  as  you  shall  appoint,  and  take  sure 
order  that  none  escape  the  same  houses  until  due  search 
be  made  of  all  persons  there  to  be  found." 2  In  consequence 
of  this  order  a  raid  was  made  on  the  house  of  James  Tinne, 
goldsmith,  in  Westminster,  on  4th  March,  when  seventy- 
seven  people,  forty-seven  men  and  thirty  women,  were  found 
there  gathered.  None  of  the  names  are  familiar,  but  can  it 
be  doubted,  in  the  light  of  the  Council's  letter,  that  they  are 
those  of  Papists,  who  had  assembled  to  hear  Mass?3  This 
work  of  domiciliary  search  was  not  unpleasing  to  Bishop 
Grindal,  and  was  prosecuted  by  him  in  the  North  as  well 
as  in  London.  He  ordered  Sir  Thomas  Gargrave,  an  earnest 
Gospeller,  whose  name  has  already  appeared  in  connection 
with  the  first  visitation  of  the  Northern  Province  in  1559, 
to  search  the  house  of  the  Countess  of  Northumberland, 
when  the  capture  of  no  less  than  three  priests  rewarded 

1  Cf.  P.R.O.  Dom.  Eliz.,  Add.,  XI,  No.  45,  ?  1561. 

2  P.R.O.  Dom.  Eliz.,  xlvi,  No.  44,  1st  March,  1567-8. 

3  Ibid.,  xlvi,  No.  46. 


TO  THE  RELIGIOUS  CHANGES  531 

their  raid,  one  of  whom,  Henry  Comberford,  had  seen  the 
inside  of  many  prisons  since  the  commencement  of  the 
reign.  He  was  one  of  the  many  priests  at  that  time  de- 
prived.1 This  intrepid  confessor  was  on  that  occasion  sub- 
jected to  examination,  when  he  fearlessly  upheld  "the 
Mass  to  be  good,  and  saith  he  will  maintain  the  same  ever 
until  his  death.  Also  .  .  .  affirmeth  the  Pope  to  be  supreme 
head  of  the  Universal  Church."  2  There  were  always  in- 
formers ready  to  betray  the  Catholics  who  were  endeavour- 
ing to  observe  the  precepts  of  their  religion  by  stealth. 
Thus,  one  of  this  crew,  David  Jones,  informed  Mr.  Mills, 
secretary  to  Walsingham,  that  such  practices  were  going 
on  to  his  knowledge.  "  I  was  confessed  in  the  Marshalsea," 
he  wrote,  "and  twain  more  with  me  .  .  .  there  shall  be 
upon  Sunday  on  sevennight  a  Mass  at  my  Lord  Bishop 
Heath,  who  was  Bishop  of  York,  and  he  doth  dwell  a  little 
way  off  Windsor  [Chobham]  as  I  heard  say;  but  I  will  see 
afore  it  be  long.  Also  there  doth  come  thither  a  great  sort. 
Also  there  is  a  Mass  upon  Sunday  next  at  one  Mr.  Tyrell's, 
which  doth  dwell  in  a  place  called  Rawreth  in  Essex,  and 
he  hath  a  priest."  As  usual,  this  information  is  followed  by 
a  request  for  money;  and  though  he  admitted  having  re- 
ceived charity  from  Abbot  Feckenham,  then  in  the  Mar- 
shalsea, he  repaid  this  kindness  by  further  telling  Walsing- 
ham :  "  you  would  not  think  who  they  of  the  Marshalsea 
doth  draw  unto  them :  lying  men  which  doth  come  unto 
them  daily." 3  This  betrayal  was  followed  up  a  month  later 
by  further  information  about  a  benefactress  of  his,  "Mistress 
Cawker  a  notorious  Papist,"  formerly  the  wife  of  Tyrell  the 
Warden  of  the  Fleet.  He  particularly  noticed  that  she  wore 
a  chain  of  gold.  "  I  have  seen,"  he  says,  "  more  books  in 
her  house  of  Papistry  than  in  any  place  else.  But  concern- 
ing the  Papists  that  doth  come  to  her  Mass  to  the  Charter- 
house, there  be  to  the  number  of  10  the  last  Sunday,  and 
outlandishmen  [foreigners]  a  great  number;  in  all  there 
was  there  that  received,  about  40  .  .  .  but  [Mrs.]  Cawker 

1  P.R.O.  Dom.  Eliz.,  LXXIV,  No.  32,  10th  November,  1570. 

2  Ibid.,  enclosure  i.  3  Ibid.,  xcvn,  No.  27,  5th  July,  1574. 


532  ATTITUDE  OF  THE  LAITY 

confessed  unto  me  that  she  was  in  no  Church  this  15  years 
...  I  pray  you  to  desire  my  master  that  I  may  have  the 
benefit  of  that  she  doth  lose  by  the  statute,  and  if  it  be  but 
the  chain  that  she  doth  wear.  There  is  a  certain  priest 
named  Rand,  come  from  beyond  the  seas,  and  he  is  in  one 
Mr.  Randall's  house  in  Wood  Street."  '  A  list,  drawn  up 
by  this  traitor-spy,  is  extant,  giving  the  names  of  thirty-one 
Papists  in  London,  of  all  grades  of  society,  together  with 
six  priests.2  Thus  was  the  Council  aided  in  its  efforts  to 
stamp  out  the  practice  of  the  Catholic  religion.  It  is  one 
of  the  manifestations  of  the  activity  specially  noticeable 
during  that  year.  In  the  course  of  April  several  houses  in 
different  parts  of  London  were  raided,  as  Lady  Morley's  in 
Aldgate,  Lady  Guildford's  in  Trinity  Lane,  Oueenhithe, 
and  Mr.  Carus's  in  Limehouse.  Two  priests  were  captured, 
and  about  fifty  of  the  laity.3  Several  others  were  indited 
for  hearing  Mass  at  Easter  in  John  Pynchin's  house,  includ- 
ing Hugh  Phillips,  "late  monk  in  Westminster,  the  priest 
that  said  Mass." 4  Later  in  the  year,  on  4th  November,  the 
Portuguese  Ambassador's  house  was  searched,  when  to- 
gether with  many  foreigners,  twelve  Englishmen  were  dis- 
covered assisting  at  Mass.5  In  proof  that  these  searches 
were  not  confined  to  London,  it  may  suffice  to  refer  to  a 
list  of  persons  indicted  in  Lincolnshire  for  attending  at 
Mass.  It  includes  forty-four  names,  amongst  them  being 
four  "  clerks  " — presumably  dispossessed  priests ;  they  were 

Nicholas  Tirwhite,  Handlebie,  Richard  Parker,  and 

Bartholomew ,  of  Kyme.6 

Notwithstanding  the  disabilities,  and  worse,  attending 
the  observance  of  the  precepts  of  the  Catholic  Church,  in 
those  districts  where  the  principles  of  the  Reformation  had 
made  little  or  no  progress,  the  boldness  of  the  recusants 
was  remarkable.    Lancashire  has  always  been  noted  for  its 

1  P.R.O.  Dom.  Eliz.,  xcviii,  No.  10,  13th  August,  1574. 

2  Ibid.,  Add.  xxv,  No.  118.  The  calendar  dates  it,  ?  October,  1578. 
It  more  probably  belongs  to  1574. 

3  Lansd.  MS.  19,  No.  21,  4th  April,  1574.  4  Ibid.,  23,  No.  59. 
5  Ibid.,  No.  52.                           6  Ibid.,  30,  No.  75,  24th  July,  1580. 


TO  THE  RELIGIOUS  CHANGES  533 

solidarity  in  this  respect;  hence  it  may  be  absolutely 
in  accordance  with  facts,  that  as  one  Richard  Harleston 
reported  to  the  Earl  of  Pembroke  on  20th  December, 
1 567,  he  had  "  heard  by  Mr.  Gerard,  Recorder  of  Chester, 
that  there  is  in  Lancashire  a  great  number  of  gentlemen 
and  others  of  the  best  sort,  it  is  reported  five  hundred,  that 
have  taken  a  solemn  oath  amongst  themselves  that  they 
will  not  come  at  the  Communion  nor  receive  the  Sacrament 
during  the  Queen's  Majesty's  reign."1  Such  a  spirit  of; 
open  opposition  clearly  indicates  the  presence  of  priests  in 
the  midst  of  these  Lancashire  gentry,  giving  them  the 
services  they  were  willing  to  attend.  Accordingly,  the; 
Council  took  action;  and,  on  3rd  February,  1567-8,  sent 
orders  to  the  Bishop  of  Chester  and  others,  to  institute  a 
rigorous  search  for  the  discovery  of  all  who  might  be  lurk- 
ing within  their  jurisdictions.2  At  the  same  time,  as  a  spur 
to  his  energies,  the  Queen  wrote  the  Bishop  of  Chester  a 
severe  reprimand  for  the  remissness  hitherto  characterising 
his  rule.3  Nevertheless,  the  courage  of  the  Lancashire  re- 
cusants increased  rather  than  diminished,  and  many  who 
had  hitherto  conformed  outwardly,  began  to  make  their 
submission  and  to  be  "  reconciled  "  with  Rome,  for  their 
former  pusillanimousness.4  Further,  it  was  reported  that, 
as  before  stated,  the  gentry  had  sworn  to  forswear  the 
Established  Church,  and  "  to  maintain  the  Mass  and  Papis- 
try " ;  as  a  consequence  "  many  church  doors  be  shut  up 
and  the  curates  refuse  to  serve  as  it  is  now  appointed  to 
be  used  in  the  Church."  5  Measures  were  in  consequence 
taken  to  summon  many  of  the  leading  gentry,  but  the 
results  were  hardly  encouraging,  for,  as  a  whole,  the  in- 

1  P.R.O.  Dom.  Eliz.,  xliv,  No.  56. 

2  Ibid.,  xlvi,  Nos.  19,20,  etc.,  32,  21st  February,  1567-8,  which  speci- 
fically mentions  the  presence  of  hiding  priests,  "who  having  been  late 
ministers  in  the  Church,  were  justly  deprived  of  their  offices  of  ministry 
for  their  contempt  and  obstinacy,  be  yet  (or  lately  have  been)  secretly 
maintained  in  private  places  in  that  our  county  of  Lancaster." 

3  Ibid.,  xlvi,  No.  33,  2 1  st  February,  1567-8. 

4  Cf.  ibid.,  XLVlll,  No.  34,  1st  November,  1568. 

5  Ibid.,  xlviii,  No.  35,  1st  November,  1568. 


534  ATTITUDE  OF  THE  LAITY 

criminated  gentlemen  confessed  to  their  recusancy,  but 
refused  to  conform  themselves.1  Bishop  Barnes,  of  Carlisle, 
corroborated  the  difficulties  his  colleague  of  Chester  every- 
where met  with.  Writing  to  Cecil  on  27th  October,  1570, 
he  said:  "  In  Lancashire  ...  on  all  hands  the  people  fall 
from  religion,  revolt  to  Popery,  refuse  to  come  at  church. 
The  wicked  popish  priests  reconcile  them  to  the  Church 
of  Rome,  and  cause  them  to  abjure  this,  Christ's  religion, 
and  that  openly  and  unchecked.  Since  Felton  set  up  the 
excommunication,  in  some  houses  of  great  men  (you  know 
whom  I  mean)  no  service  hath  been  said  in  the  English 
tongue."2  A  list  of  thirty-two  gentlemen  of  Westmoreland 
and  Cumberland  attached  to  this  letter,  with  his  comments 
on  each  individual,  somewhat  belies  the  Bishop's  report  on 
the  diocese  he  himself  ruled  :  "  of  a  truth  I  never  came  in 
place  in  this  land  where  more  attentive  ear  was  given  to 
the  Word  than  here."  Ten  were  either  favourable  to  the 
Reformation,  or,  at  least,  not  openly  hostile;  these  are 
classed  as  Evangelio  fav ens, amicus  veritatis,aulicae  religionis 
nee  inimicus ;  the  rest  are  branded  with  such  terms  as 
sanguinarius  Papista,  vir  vafri  ingenii,  cordis  obdurati  veri- 
tatem  odit,  cane  pejus,  alter  Jehu,  spirans  minas,  etc.  At  a 
later  date,  a  list  was  drawn  up  of  Cheshire  gentry  whose 
houses  were  "  greatly  infected  with  Popery  and  not  looked 
unto";3  the  term  of  our  enquiry  leaves  this  part  of  the 
country  as  little  well  disposed  to  the  Reformation  as  it  had 
been  more  than  twenty  years  before. 

Notwithstanding  the  rigour  of  the  treatment  meted  out 
to  the  rebels  of  the  Northern  Rising,  during  1570,  the  fol- 
lowing year  Pilkington,  Bishop  of  Durham,  reported  that 
there  were  in  his  diocese  many  who  "  come  at  no  church." 
And  this,  though  he  had  "  called  them  and  done  some  cor- 
rection on  the  men,  but  without  any  their  amendment."4 

1  P.R.O.  Dom.  Eliz.,  xlviii,  No.  36,  and  enclosures  i-x. 

2  Ibid.,  LXXIV,  No.  22.  Cf.  also,  same  to  Earl  of  Sussex,  16th  October, 
1570;  P  R.O.  Dom.  Eliz.,  Add.  xix,  No.  16  i. 

3  Ibid.,  Add.  xxvn,  No.  94. 

4  P.R.O.  Dom.  Eliz.,  lxxxi,  No.  48,  15th  October,  1571. 


TO  THE  RELIGIOUS  CHANGES  535 

Archbishop  Grindal,  on  taking  possession  of  his  northern 
See,  writes  that  he  is  "  informed  that  the  greatest  part  of 
our  gentlemen  are  not  well-affected  to  godly  religion." l 
Earlier  in  the  year,  Cecil  had  had  full  information  sent  to 
him  about  the  activity  of  Papists  in  the  North,  of  the  celebra- 
tion of  Mass,  etc.2  Shortly  after  the  rebellion,  Sir  Thomas 
Gargrave  made  out  a  list  of  Yorkshire  gentry  for  the  Privy 
Council,  showing  how  much  each  of  the  persons  it  con- 
tained could  contribute  towards  a  loan.  All  were  ticketed 
as  "Protestant"  or  "  Catholic."  There  were  twenty-five  of 
the  latter,  three  being  set  down  as  good  for  one  hundred 
marks,  and  the  rest  for  £$o  apiece,  showing  they  were  all 
of  considerable  wealth.  There  were  of  course  a  large 
number  of  less  standing,  but  their  names  were  not  in- 
cluded.3 The  same  official,  at  a  later  date,  drew  out  for 
Lord  Burghley  a  list  of  the  chief  gentry  of  Yorkshire.  Each 
name  has  a  "  mark  "  prefixed  to  it,  which,  as  explained 
by  Gargrave,  represented  "  Protestant " ;  "  worst  sort  "  [of 
Catholic];  "mean  or  less  evil";  "doubtful  or  neuter."  It 
will  be  readily  understood  that  the  last  two  divisions 
really  represent  the  cunning  Papists.  The  list  contains 
the  names  of  128  gentlemen,  thus  divided:  47  Protest- 
ants; 19  staunch  Catholics;  22  of  a  weaker  calibre;  and 
40  doubtful.4 

Turning  to  another  part  of  England,  a  similar  state  of 
things  is  disclosed.  One  of  Cecil's  spies  reported  to  him 
concerning  Norfolk,  Suffolk,  and  that  portion  of  England 
generally,  showing  that  Catholics  were  there  on  the  increase 
and  active.5  In  Essex,  Catholics  were  just  as  bold;  meeting 
by  twenties  and  thirties  at  a  time  for  Mass.  Near  Colchester 
"there  hath  been  Mass  said  commonly;  it  is  like  to  be  so 
still."  Justices  of  Peace  "  lean  over-much  to  them  " — the 
Papists;  are  Papists  themselves  and  have  not  taken  the 

1  P.R.O.  Dom.  Eliz.,  lxxiii,  No.  35,  29th  August,  1570. 

2  Ibid.,  Add.  xvn,  No.  72,  6th  February,  1569-70. 

3  Ibid.y  Add.  xvm,  No.  39  i. 

4  Ibid.,  Add.  xxi,  No.  86  ii,  18th  September,  1572. 

5  P.R.O.  Dom.  Eliz.,  lxxiii,  No.  10,  10th  August,  1570. 


536  ATTITUDE  OF  THE  LAITY 

oath;  this,  too,  in  1577.1  Next  year  several  were  judicially 
proceeded  against,  and  a  few  were  induced  to  conform; 
but,  after  the  elimination  of  the  weaker  brethren,  there 
remained  a  considerable  number  who  refused  to  give  way, 
and  were  in  consequence  dealt  with  by  conference  and 
the  other  methods  of  persuasion  favoured  by  the  Reformers.2 
The  diocese  of  Winchester  has  already  been  indicated  as, 
from  the  very  first,  hostile  to  the  changes  effected  in  1559; 
and,  notwithstanding  Home's  efforts  that  the  Protestant 
service  "  mought  be  frequented,"  this  had  not  been  brought 
about  even  by  1562,  "since  the  Massing  time";  the  new 
teaching  "  they  as  yet  do  not  so  well  like  and  allow  " ;  and 
his  schemes  for  furthering  the  work  of  the  Reformation  in 
his  Cathedral  city  he  "  could  not  by  any  means  hitherto 
bring  the  same  to  pass,"3  more  especially  as  he  realised 
that  "  they  shall  continue  and  be  further  nursled  in  super- 
stition and  Popery,  lacking  not  of  some  priests  in  the 
Cathedral  Church  to  'inculke'  the  same  daily  into  their 
heads."  The  character  he  gave  his  subjects  was  hardly 
hopeful :  "  the  said  inhabitants  are  very  stubborn,  whose 
reformation  would  help  the  greatest  part  of  the  shire  bent 
that  way,  .  .  .  some  of  them  have  boasted  and  avaunted, 
that,  do  what  I  can,  I  shall  not  have  this  my  purpose.  .  .  . 
Sundry  there  are  in  the  shire  which  have  borne  great 
countenance  in  the  late  times,  which  hinder  as  much  as 
they  can  the  proceedings  in  religion;  and  to  be  found 
not  to  have  communicated  since  the  Queen's  Majesty's 
reign  began,  since  the  Mass-saying,  against  whom  I  think 
hereafter  I  must  proceed  to  enforcement."4  The  energetic 
Bishop  was  as  good  as  his  promise,  and  laboured  hard  to 
bring  his  diocese  into  conformity ;  but  notwithstanding  all 
he  might  do,  Catholic  he  found  it  and  Catholic  he  left  it. 
In  1572  a  list  was  drawn  up  of  the  "  Noblemen,  gentlemen, 

1  P.R.O.  Dom.  Eliz.,  cxx,  Nos.  26,  27. 

2  Cotton  MS.  Titus  B.  ill,  No.  21,  f.  60;  No.  22,  f.  69,  and  P.R.O. 
Dom.  Eliz.,  clxii,  No.  43. 

3  P.R.O.  Dom.  Eliz.,  xxi,  No.  7, 12th  January,  1561-2.  Home  to  Cecil. 
1  Ibid. 


TO  THE  RELIGIOUS  CHANGES  537 

yeomen  and  chief  franklins  within  the  county  of  South- 
ampton, with  note  of  every  their  dispositions."1  This 
interesting  document  contains  the  names  of  248  people  of 
substance,  thus  distributed  according  to  the  "  notes  "  fur- 
nished about  each  individual.  One  hundred  and  five,  having 
no  mark,  are  presumably  ranked  as  Protestant,  though 
some  of  the  names  thus  undistinguished  are  those  of  un- 
doubted Catholics,  as  future  years  of  persecution  endured 
were  to  prove.  Ninety-six  are  noted  "  p,"  which  indicates 
that  they  were  quiet  men,  though  Papists ;  while  forty-seven, 
against  whose  names  are  placed  "  pp,"  were,  as  their  re- 
cords attest,  very  earnest  and  militant  Papists.  From  this 
it  may  be  adduced  that  fully  two-thirds  of  the  diocese 
were  still  attached  to  the  religion  of  their  fathers.2  On 
9th  June,  1576,  the  Council,  hearing  of  other  "  disorders," 
sent  down  a  commission  to  search  the  house  of  one 
Alexander  Dering  for  "  great  store  of  vestments,  books, 
and  other  Massing  tools  to  serve  lewd  purposes,  when  any 
so  evil  given  is  disposed  to  have  the  use  of  them ;  he  him- 
self being  a  man  very  perversely  bent  against  the  present 
state  of  religion."3 

Having  now  seen  that  the  number  of  Papists  in  various 
parts  of  England  was  not  only  considerable,  but  formidable, 
far  into  the  reign,  it  remains  to  summarise  the  proposals 
formulated  at  different  times  to  cope  with  the  supposed 
danger,  and  to  gather  into  one  purview  the  chief  legisla- 
tion against  the  recusants  within  the  limits  of  this  enquiry. 

It  was  speedily  realised  that  the  penalties  imposed  by 
the  legislation  of  1559  was  in  no  way  adequate  to  suppress 
the  old  Faith  and  practice.  Accordingly,  in  the  second 
Parliament  convened  by  Queen  Elizabeth  in  the  fifth  year 
of  her  reign,  12th  January,  1563,  an  Act  was  passed  further 
to  define  her  power  over  all  estates  and  subjects  within 
her  dominions,4  whereby  any  one  upholding  the  authority 
or  jurisdiction  of  the  Pope  would  incur  the  penalties  of 

1  P.R.O.  Dom.  Eliz.,  xc,  No.  18. 

2  Cf.  also  ibid.,  xcil,  Nos.  3,  and  3  i,  2nd  July,  1573. 

3  Ibid.%  cvm,  No.  40.  4  5  Eliz.,  c.  1. 


538  ATTITUDE  OF  THE  LAITY 

Praemunire.  Bishops  were  empowered  to  administer  the 
oath  of  Supremacy  to  any  spiritual  person ;  and  the  Lord 
Keeper  might  direct  a  commission  to  tender  the  oath  to 
any  person  whomsoever,  the  penalty  after  conviction  for  a 
first  refusal  was  that  entailed  by  Praemunire,  for  a  second 
that  of  treason.1  The  passage  of  this  measure  through 
Parliament  was  rendered  notable  by  two  speeches,  pre- 
served to  us,  in  opposition  to  it,  one  by  Mr.  Atkinson  in 
the  lower  Chamber,2  the  other  by  Lord  Montagu  in  the 
upper  House.3  Though  these  intrepid  opponents  of  a 
popular  Government  measure  were  helped  by  the  resistance 
of  other  members,  their  efforts  were  unavailing. 

The  Convocation  which  sat  at  the  same  time  had  before 
it  for  revision  the  Forty-two  Articles  of  Edward  VI;  by 
certain  omissions  and  one  addition,  they  issued  forth  once 
more  as  the  famous  Thirty-nine  Articles,  to  this  day  the 
pillar  and  foundation  of  the  Church  of  England  as  by  Law 
Established ;  but  any  further  consideration  of  these  formulas 
would  fall  outside  the  scope  of  this  enquiry. 

Their  hands  strengthened  by  the  provisions  of  the  new 
Act  of  1563,  the  bishops  were  eager  to  bring  their  im- 
prisoned predecessors  to  book.  Watson  and  Bonner,  as  the 
most  obnoxious  to  them,  were  the  first  to  be  experimented 
on.  On  2nd  May,  1564,  Grindal,  referring  to  this  fact, 
wrote  to  Cecil:  "For  D.  Bonner's  oath,  I  did  of  purpose 
not  trouble  you  with  it  aforehand,  that  if  any  misliked  the 
matter,  ye  might  liquido  jurare  ye  were  not  privy  of  it. 
Notwithstanding  I  had  my  Lord  of  Canterbury's  approba- 
tion by  letters,  and  I  used  good  advice  of  the  learned  in 
the  laws  .  .  .  and  no  more  meet  man  to  begin  withal,  than 
that  person."4  It  might  have  been  better  had  Grindal  and 
Home  not  been  so  precipitate ;  for  when  the  latter  tendered 
the  oath  to  Bonner,  then  a  prisoner  in  the  Marshalsea, 
and  so  within  the  territorial  limits  of  the  diocese  of  Win- 

1  Cotton  MS.  Titus  B.  in,  No.  24,  f.  65. 

2  Cf.  Tierney's  Dodd,  ed.  1839,  ii,  p.  ccliv,  App.  xxxvii,  Part  II. 

3  Ibid.,  Part  I,  p.  ccli. 

4  P.R.O.  Dom.  Eliz.,  xxxiv,  No.  1. 


TO  THE  RELIGIOUS  CHANGES  539 

Chester,  the  former  Bishop  of  London  refused  to  be  sworn, 
whereupon,  to  quote  Mr.  James  Gairdner's  notice  of  him  in 
the  Dictionary  of  National  Biography ,■  "  he  was  indicted  of 
a  Praemunire;  but  by  his  legal  astuteness  he  raised  the 
question  whether  Home  had  been  rightly  consecrated  as 
bishop  even  by  statute  law,  and  the  objection  was  found 
so  important  that  an  Act  of  Parliament  had  to  be  passed  2 
to  free  the  titles  of  the  Elizabethan  bishops  from  ambiguity. 
The  charge  was  then  withdrawn,  and  the  oath  was  not 
again  tendered  to  him."  It  became  necessary  to  cast  about 
for  some  more  suitable  way  to  punish  recusants,  more 
especially  as  it  may  reasonably  be  doubted  if  this  savage 
legislation  had  been  meant  to  be  otherwise  employed  than 
in  terrorem.  A  paper  belonging  to  1565  shows  that  some, 
at  least,  favoured  fining;  "so  will  it  procure  to  the  Queen's 
Majesty  such  present  profit,  without  any  her  charge,  and 
restore  her  to  such  perfect  knowledge  how  when  and 
where  to  punish  all  that  from  time  to  time  will  wilfully 
offend,  as  that  it  will  redound  to  such  her  continual  great 
gain,  as  none  of  her  ancestors  for  this  three  hundred  years 
had  ever  more,  or  the  like."3  Another  instance  of  episcopal 
persecution  is  furnished  by  the  Archbishop  of  York,  who 
was  seeking  a  handle  against  Sir  William  Babthorpe;4  but 
more  statesmanlike  views  prevailed,  at  least  for  a  time. 
Sir  Nicholas  Bacon  was  no  advocate  at  that  date,  or 
indeed  for  a  long  while  after,  of  what  he  rightly  designated 
"  bloody  laws."  On  28th  November,  1567,  the  Lord  Keeper 
made  a  speech  in  the  Star  Chamber,  wherein  he  said :  "  for 
extreme  and  bloody  laws  I  have  never  liked  them  ";  but  to 
repress  religious  sedition  he  was  prepared  to  go  con- 
siderable lengths,  illustrating  his  meaning  by  a  comparison, 
differentiating  between  whipping  and  hanging.    "  Indeed, 

1  Vol.  v,  p.  360. 

2  8  Eliz.  c.  1.  "An  Act  declaring  the  making  and  consecrating  of 
the  Archbishops  and  Bishops  of  this  realm  to  be  good,  lawful,  and 
perfect." 

3  P.R.O.  Dom.  Eliz.,  xxxvm,  No.  41. 

4  Ibid.,  Add.,  XII,  No.  58,  29th  April,  1565. 


540  ATTITUDE  OF  THE  LAITY 

though  whipping  may  be  thought  extreme,"  he  said,  "  yet 
by  whipping,  a  man  may  escape  hanging  .  .  .  and  better 
it  were  for  a  man  to  be  twice  whipped  than  once  hanged."1 
These  sentiments  have  a  bearing  on  the  policy  occasionally 
practised  by  the  Council.  Thus  at  a  later  date,  perhaps 
1 579,  some  one  in  a  position  of  authority,  probably  Walsing- 
ham,  wrote  a  secret  word  of  warning  to  some  over-zealous 
official,  pointing  out  to  him  that  although  "  it  were  fit  that 
Papists  who  will  not  conform  .  .  .  should  receive  punish- 
ment due  to  their  contempt,  .  .  .  yet  the  time  serveth  not 
now  to  deal  therein ;  and  therefore  I  cannot  but  advise 
you  ...  to  forbear  to  prosecute  by  way  of  indictment 
such  as  lately  were  presented  .  .  .  for  that  if  you  shall 
proceed  therein,  you  shall  not  prevail  to  do  that  good  you 
shall  desire,  but  shall  rather  receive  foil  through  some 
commandment  from  hence,  prohibiting  you  to  surcease  in 
proceeding  in  that  behalf,  which  would  breed  no  less 
discredit  unto  you  than  encouragement  to  the  Papists."2 

But  if,  at  times,  policy  dictated  caution  and  moderation 
in  the  Council's  dealings  with  recusants,  the  same  could 
not  be  predicated  always.  Sometimes  the  influence  at  work 
is  clearly  the  possibility  of  a  matrimonial  alliance  between 
Elizabeth  and  one  or  another  of  her  many  suitors,  as  the 
Due  d'Alencon  or  the  Due  d'Anjou,  both  Catholics.  But 
when  such  projects  were  in  abeyance,  the  subject  of  re- 
straining the  Papists  was  always  well  to  the  fore,  once  the 
papal  excommunication  had  been  published  by  Felton's 
means  in  1570.  Very  shortly  after  that  audacious  chal- 
lenge, Lord  Burghley  drew  up  a  paper  dealing  with  the 
need  of  enforcing  the  statutes  against  those  who  refused  to 
conform.  But  in  place  of  the  \2d.  hitherto  leviable  for 
every  abstention  from  church  services,  it  was  proposed  to 
raise  the  fine  to  £20  a  month,  counting  four  Sundays  to 
the  month,  or  thirteen  months  to  the  year.3  The  Legisla- 
ture was  in  a  state  of  panic  and  indignant  loyalty;  hence 

1  P.R.O.  Dom.  Eliz.,  xliv,  No.  52.  2  Ibid.,  xlv,  No.  27. 

3  Cotton  MS.  Titus  B.  in,  No.  18.  f.  63.  Lord  Burghley's  holo- 
graph. 


TO  THE  RELIGIOUS  CHANGES  541 

Lord  Burghley  was  able  to  push  through  various  measures 
of  extreme  harshness  against  the  priests  who  were  now 
beginning  to  come  over  from  Louvain,  Douay,  Rheims, 
and  Rome.  The  priests  who  "  reconciled "  the  Queen's 
subjects  were  to  suffer  as  traitors;  those  who  aided  and 
maintained  them  incurred  the  penalties  of  a  Praemunire, 
while  those  who  concealed  them  were  liable  to  the  punish- 
ment of  misprision  of  treason — forfeiture  of  goods  and 
profits  of  lands,  and  imprisonment  at  the  Queen's  pleasure.1 
These  measures  were  embodied  in  the  Act  known  as 
13  Eliz.  c.  2,  "An  Act  against  the  bringing  in,  and  putting 
in  execution  of  Bulls,  writings  or  instruments,  and  other 
superstitious  things  from  the  See  of  Rome."  This  Act  of 
Parliament  was  followed  by  a  royal  Proclamation  against 
recusants  in  general.2  In  the  following  April  a  Bill  was 
prepared  "  against  disguised  priests,"  showing  the  alarm 
with  which  the  Government  witnessed  the  increase  of  recus- 
ancy notwithstanding  the  heavy  penalties  which  weighed 
down  the  Papists.3  Although  this  Bill  never  became  law,  it 
is  nevertheless  interesting,  as  showing  the  growing  spirit  of 
hostility,  and  as  foreshadowing  the  enactments  from  1584 
onwards.4  So  impressed  were  the  bishops  with  the  neces- 
sity of  strictly  enforcing  existing  laws,  and,  indeed,  of 
reinforcing  them  with  more  stringent  penalties,  that 
Edmund  Grindal,  then  Archbishop  of  York,  wrote  on  2nd 
June,  1572,  to  Lord  Burghley,  telling  him  that  he  and 
other  bishops  had  been  with  the  Queen  the  day  before  to 
urge  on  her  the  need  for  increased  severity,  and  taking 
with  them  the  draft  of  a  Bill  for  that  purpose.  "  The 
passing  of  this  Bill  will  do  very  much  good,"  he  wrote, 
especially  in  the  North  parts,  where  pecuniary  mulcts  are 

1  Cf.  Cotton  MS.  Titus  B.  in,  No.  19,  f.  64;  No.  26,  f.  68. 

2  P.R.O.  Dom.  Eliz.,  LXXiv,  No.  33,  14th  November,  1570. 

3  Ibid.,  lxxvii,  No.  60,  27th  April,  1571. 

4  Cf.  also  P.R.O.  Dom.  Eliz.,  lxxxiii,  No.  29.  This  document  is  a 
draft  of  a  Bill  on  similar  lines,  but  increasing  the  penalty  for  recusancy, 
on  the  plan  of  a  sliding  scale  for  the  length  of  time  during  which  the 
obstinacy  may  have  been  prolonged. 


542  ATTITUDE  OF  THE  LAITY 

more  feared  than  bodily  imprisonment;  for  thereby  some 
of  them  grow  richer  than  they  were  before,  and  fall  to  pur- 
chasing of  land  in  prison,  which,  being  at  liberty,  they  were 
not  able  to  do."1 

In  this  connection  it  may  not  be  without  interest,  as 
showing  the  prevalence  of  Papist  tendencies  still  mani- 
fested amongst  the  clergy,  notwithstanding  their  apparent 
outward  conformity,  to  call  attention  to  the  "  Act  for  the 
ministers  of  the  Church  to  be  of  sound  religion."  2  This 
imposed  on  all  the  clergy  the  obligation  of  subscribing  and 
assenting  to  the  Thirty-nine  Articles,  and  of  reading  them- 
selves in  publicly,  under  pain  of  deprivation  ipso  facto 
unless  performed  within  two  months  of  induction.  A  case 
arose  in  Essex  where  a  newly-inducted  minister,  by  default, 
fell  under  the  penalty  of  the  statute.  Grindal,  as  his  dio- 
cesan, wrote  to  the  Earl  of  Sussex  to  shield  the  clergyman, 
who,  "  ignorant  of  the  late  statute,  omitted  the  reading  of 
the  Articles  two  months  after  his  institution,  and  the 
statute  saith  that  for  default  therein  ipso  facto  he  is 
deprived.  The  parishioners  there  take  hold  of  the  words 
of  the  statute  rather  than  of  the  meaning,  and  labour  by 
what  means  they  can  to  remove  him  from  that  his  charge 
and  living.  This  statute  was  made  for  popisJi  priests  that 
had  no  liking  of  true  religion.  These  men  would  have  it 
executed  upon  a  zealous,  honest  young  man  well  affected 
towards  religion,  who  hath  read  the  said  Articles  three  or 
four  times  openly  in  the  Church  since,  with  great  protesta- 
tion of  his  good  liking  thereof."  3 

Legislation  had  failed  to  effect  the  purposes  of  the 
Council ;  those  who  were  anxious  to  attain  some  measure 
of  success  for  their  projects  now  turned  to  the  idea  of 
employing  methods  of  coercion  to  bring  about  the  ends 
desired.  The  Attorney-General  was  consulted,  and  in  con- 
junction with  other  lawyers  propounded  various  plans  for 
the  consideration  of  the  Government.    The  details  are  of 

1  P.R.O.  Dom.  Eliz.,  LXXXVlll,  No.  5. 

-  13  Eliz.  c.  12. 

3  Cotton  MS.  Vespasian  F.  XII,  No.  91,  f.  131. 


TO  THE  RELIGIOUS  CHANGES  543 

no  particular  consequence  for  the  purposes  of  this  enquiry.1 
They  resolve  themselves  into  a  more  strict  imprisonment 
for  priests,  carried  out  later  by  their  being  deported  to 
Wisbeach,  and  to  a  searching  enquiry  into  the  qualifications 
and  conformity  of  schoolmasters.  Finally,  one  Norton  drew 
up  a  paper  of  suggestions  on  precisely  similar  lines,  but  in 
greater  detail,  dealing  not  only  very  fully  with  the  im- 
portant question  of  schoolmasters,  but  also  with  the  Inns 
of  Court  and  the  bench  of  magistrates.2 

The  legal  profession  as  a  whole,  like  the  members  of  the 
other  learned  profession  of  medicine,  remained  for  long  a 
centre  of  opposition  to  the  parliamentary  religion.  At  the 
time  of  the  Rising  of  the  North,  when  the  Justices  of  Peace 
were  being  confronted  with  the  oath  of  Supremacy,  the 
members  of  the  Inns  of  Court  were  also  subjected  to  a 
searching  examination.  This  disclosed  a  most  unsatis- 
factory state  of  things  from  the  Council's  point  of  view, 
for  large  numbers  were  found  utterly  irreconcilable ;  others 
were  patently  merely  outward  conformists ;  few  were  sin- 
cere adherents  of  the  Reformation.3  Many  refused  to 
answer,  standing  on  the  ground  that  they  were  not  bound 
to  incriminate  themselves.  Such  an  attitude  is  signi- 
ficant of  their  real  sentiments.  Again,  in  1577,  when 
returns  were  being  demanded  by  the  Council  from  all  the 
dioceses  as  to  the  recusancy  there  existing,  the  legal  col- 
leges were  also  the  subject  of  enquiry.  Six  of  the  Inns  of 
Chancery  furnish  the  names  of  25  who  refused  to  attend 
the  Protestant  service.    The  other  two  Inns,  Clement's  and 

1  They  may  be  seen,  however,  in  a  series  of  documents ;  cf.  Lansd. 
MS.  155,  No.  13,  3rd  December,  1578;  P.R.O.  Dom.  Eliz.,  cxxvn, 
No.  7 ;  ibid.,  cxxvn,  No.  6.  "  The  means  whereby  such  as  are  back- 
ward and  corrupt  in  religion  may  be  reduced  to  conformity,  and  others 
stayed  from  the  like  corruption";  P.R.O.  Dom.  Eliz.,  xlv,  pp.  10-11 ; 
p.  21,  ?  Walsingham  to  the  Bishop  of  London. 

2  Lansd.  MS.  155,  Nos.  32,  40,  41,  42,45  ;  Cotton  MS.  Titus  F.  III. 
No.  26,  f.  267. 

3  P.R.O.  Dom.  Eliz.,  LX,  No.  70.  Abstract  of  examinations  of  gen- 
tlemen of  the  Inns  of  Court  summoned  before  the  Commissioners  for 
Ecclesiastical  Causes. 


544  ATTITUDE  OF  THE  LAITY 

Lyons',  had  no  recusants.1  The  Middle  and  Inner  Temple 
returned  the  names  of  18  and  60  respectively,  while  Lin- 
coln's Inn  showed  40,  and  Gray's  Inn  51  members,  all  more 
or  less  infected  with  Popery,  and  hostile  to  the  reformed 
service.2  The  important  point  connected  with  this  large 
number  of  educated  and  more  or  less  influential  body  of 
recusants  lies  in  the  fact  that  they  represent  not  only  the 
individual  sentiments  of  these  students  and  legal  practi- 
tioners, but  also  those  of  their  families  and  households  in 
the  country.  It  is  therefore  easy  to  understand  the  import- 
ance of  Norton's  suggestions  "  for  establishing  religion  in 
the  Inns  of  Court  and  Chancery  "  already  referred  to.3 

Some  reference  must  be  made  to  another  class  of  Eliza- 
beth's recalcitrant  subjects.  Bishop  Cooper,  already  quoted, 
called  them  Fleeing  Papists;  they  were,  however,  officially 
known  as,  and  usually  called,  Fugitives.  As  soon  as  the  Acts 
of  Supremacy  and  Uniformity  of  1559  had  been  passed, 
large  numbers  of  families  and  individuals,  clerical  and  lay, 
passed  beyond  the  seas,  in  the  hopes  of  finding  in  exile  on 
the  Continent  that  freedom  to  practice  their  religion  denied 
them  in  their  own  country.  There,  safe  from  persecution 
and  vengeance,  but  leading  lives  of  penury  and  ofttimes  of 
destitution,  some,  as  might  be  expected,  plotted  against  the 
Queen ;  others  prepared  themselves  for  the  priesthood  with 
the  avowed  purpose  of  returning  to  render  spiritual  aid  to 
their  countrymen  in  danger  of  being  totally  deprived  of 
the  consolations  of  their  Faith  as  time  wore  on.  All  these 
Englishmen  abroad  were  considered  by  the  Queen  and  her 
Council  as  constituting  a  menace  and  a  danger  to  the 
peace  and  quiet  of  the  kingdom ;  and  this  fear  was  accent- 
uated when  their  numbers  were  augmented  by  the  escape 
of  many  of  the  proscribed  rebels  of  the  Northern  Rising  of 
1569.  It  was  after  that  event  that  active  measures  began 
to  be  taken  against  them.  An  Act  (13  Eliz.  c.  3)  was 
passed,  depriving  them  of  their  lands  and  possessions,  and 

1  P.R.O.  Dom.  Eliz.,  cxvm,  Nos.  38  and  38  i,  24th  November,  1577. 

2  Ibid.,  cxvm,  Nos.  68,  69,  70,  71,  November,  1577. 

3  Lansd.  MS.  155,  No.  42. 


TO  THE  RELIGIOUS  CHANGES  545 

nullifying  any  transfer  they  may  have  made  thereof  in  order 
to  escape  any  such  confiscation.  Lands  seized  in  this  way 
were  freely  granted.  Thus,  for  example,  many  of  the  lands 
belonging  to  Thomas  Leedes  were  by  royal  grant  made 
over  to  Sir  Thomas  West.1  Frequent  mention  is  made  of 
these  fugitives,  and  the  Council  endeavoured  to  secure  as 
accurate  lists  as  possible  of  the  names  and  whereabouts  of 
those  who  had  fled  the  country;  even  prisoners  were  sub- 
jected to  searching  examination  in  order  to  elicit  informa- 
tion not  only  as  to  such  details,  but  also  as  to  the  sources 
whence  help  reached  them.  Thus,  Henry  Simpson  of  Dar- 
lington, under  examination,  furnished  particulars  about 
79  named  fugitives,  several  of  whom  represent  many  more 
unnamed  persons,  members  of  their  households.2  Another 
list,  dated  29th  September,  1572,  referring  to  the  Low 
Countries  alone,  mentions  53  individuals,  but  also  gives 
general  information  of  "  divers  other  Papists  at  Doway,  to 
a  great  number,"  "  divers  gentlemen  and  their  wives  dwell- 
ing at  Lier  town."  "  One  Father  Prior,  whose  name  is  Mr. 
Chayssey,3  with  his  convent,  being  all  Englishmen,  and 
himself  maintainer  and  succourer  of  poor  rebels,  Papists  and 
priests,  with  others."  Also,  a  matter  specially  obnoxious 
to  the  Council,  "  Item,  John  Fowler,  printer  [at  Antwerp] 
for  all  rebels  and  Papists  their  books."  4  A  list  drawn  up 
in  1575  gives  the  names  of  47  recipients  of  bounty  from 
the  King  of  Spain  to  enable  them  to  support  themselves 
in  their  exile.5  Another  list  of  the  same  date 6  is  even 
fuller;  and  yet  another,  dated  26th  December,  1576,  fur- 
nishes additional  names.7 

At  home,  the  numbers  of  recusants  became  a  matter  of 
extreme  solicitude  to  the  Council.    Thus,  on  1st  December, 

1  P.R.O.  Dom.  Eliz.,  LXXXVlll,  No.  51,  14th  July,  1572. 

2  Ibid.,  Add.,  XX,  Nos.  73  and  78,  8th  and  nth  October,  1571. 

3  Maurice  Chauncy,  Carthusian. 

4  P.R.O.  Dom.  Eliz.,  lxxxix,  No.  16. 

5  Ibid,  cv,  No.  9,  6th  July,  1575,  6  Ibid.,  cv,  No.  10. 

7  Ibid.,  ex,  No.  9;  cf.  also  Lansd.  MS.  683,  No.  17,  which,  though 
dated  29th  January,  1576-7,  is  evidently  only  a  copy  of  the  former 
one. 

NN 


546  ATTITUDE  OF  THE  LAITY 

1 569,  during  the  height  of  the  Northern  Rising,  Cecil  noted 
amongst  other  things  in  his  memoranda,  "  that  the  Bishop 
of  London  be  written  unto  to  consult  with  the  Archbishop 
of  Canterbury  to  make  a  register  of  all  the  obstinate  per- 
sons being  deprived  for  religion,  or  imprisoned  or  put  to 
bail,  with  notice  where  they  are  residing."  L  A  highly 
important  and  interesting  list  of  recusants  dating  from 
1574  is  extant.2  It  is  contained  in  a  i2mo  note-book,  en- 
dorsed "  Recusants'  names,"  and  internal  evidence  points 
to  its  being  the  compilation  of  a  Papist.  There  are  376 
Catholics  named,  all  of  the  rank  of  Esquire  or  above,  hence 
people  of  position  and  property.  These  names  are  fol- 
lowed by  those  of  216  people  then  living  in  exile,  giving 
a  total  of  592  Catholics  of  the  upper  classes.  The  special 
value  of  this  list  is  that  it  furnishes  very  full  particulars 
about  a  portion  of  the  country  concerning  which  little,  or, 
indeed,  any  information  is  forthcoming  elsewhere — Wales 
and  the  adjacent  counties.  This  list  may  serve  as  a  basis  of 
comparison  with  the  many  emanating  from  official  sources, 
which  must  now  claim  attention.  For,  being  official,  there  is 
a  danger  that  they  may  be  accepted  as  final,  in  the  same  way 
as  the  clergy  lists  have  been  accepted  as  final ;  whereas,  it  is 
as  true  of  these  lay  lists  as  of  the  clerical  ones  that  they  are 
at  best  provisional. 

At  this  juncture,  a  very  important  letter  written  by 
Aylmer,  Bishop  of  London,  to  Secretary  Walsingham, 
serves  to  throw  a  flood  of  light  on  the  policy  soon  to  be 
adopted  against  the  wealthier  sort  of  recusants.  "  My  Lord 
of  Canterbury  and  I,"  he  writes,  "  have  received  from  divers 
of  our  brethren,  bishops  of  this  realm,  that  the  Papists  do 
marvellously  increase  both  in  number  and  in  obstinate 
withdrawing  of  themselves  from  the  church  and  service  of 
God ;  for  the  remedy  whereof,  the  manner  of  imprisoning 
of  them  which  hath  been  used  heretofore  for  their  punish- 
ment, hath  not  only  little  availed,  but  also  hath  been  a 
means,  by  sparing  of  their  housekeeping,  greatly  to  enrich 

1  P.R.O.  Dom.  Eliz.,  LX,  No.  4. 

2  Ibid.,  xcix,  No.  55. 


TO  THE  RELIGIOUS  CHANGES  547 

them ;  and  such  as  here  upon  suit  have  been  enlarged  and 
upon  hope  of  amendment  sent  into  their  countries,  have 
drawn  great  multitudes  of  their  tenants  and  friends  into 
the  like  malicious  obstinacy.  Wherefore,  with  conference 
had  with  the  rest  of  our  colleagues,  we  have  thought  good 
to  forbear  the  imprisoning  of  the  richer  sort,  and  to  punish 
them  by  round  fines  to  be  imposed  for  contemptuous  refus- 
ing of  receiving  the  Communion  according  to  our  order  and 
commandments;  for  if  we  should  directly  punish  them  for 
not  coming  to  the  church,  they  have  to  allege  that  the 
penalty  being  already  set  down  by  statute  (which  is  1 2d. 
for  every  such  offence),  is  not  by  us  to  be  altered  nor 
aggravated.  This  manner  of  fining  of  them  will  procure 
the  Queen  ;£  1,000  by  year  to  her  coffers;  whatsoever  it  do 
more,  it  will  weaken  the  enemy,  and  touch  him  much 
nearer  than  any  pain  heretofore  inflicted  hath  done.  In 
conferring  with  her  Majesty  about  it,  two  things  are  to  be 
observed:  first,  that  her  Majesty  be  given  to  understand 
that  it  is  meant  hereby  as  well  to  touch  the  one  side  as  the 
other  indifferently,  or  else  you  can  guess  what  will  follow ; 
secondarily,  if  her  Majesty  by  importunate  suits  of  courtiers 
for  their  friends  be  easily  drawn  to  forgive  the  forfeitures, 
then  our  labour  will  be  lost,  we  shall  be  brought  into 
hatred,  the  enemy  shall  be  encouraged,  and  all  our  travail 
turned  to  a  mockery.  Therefore,  her  Majesty  must  be  made 
herein  to  be  animo  obfirmato,  or  else  nothing  will  be  done."1 
This  Machiavellian  suggestion,  without  doubt,  attracted 
the  attention  of  the  Council,  who  saw  in  it  a  sure  and  easy 
method  of  augmenting  the  royal  revenue.  As  a  direct  con- 
sequence of  Aylmer's  suggestion,  the  Council  sent  letters 
to  each  of  the  bishops,  under  date  15th  October,  1577, 
wherein  each  one  was  told:  "  the  Queen's  Majesty's  pleasure 
is  that  you  shall  certify  unto  us  with  all  the  diligence  you 
may,  as  well  the  names  of  all  persons  within  your  diocese 
that  refuse  to  come  to  the  church  to  hear  divine  service,  as 
also  the  value  of  their  lands  and  goods  as  you  think  they 
are  in  deed,  and  not  as  they  be  valued  in  the  Subsidy 
1  P.R.O.  Dom.  Eliz.,  cxiv,  No.  22,  21st  June,  1577. 


548  ATTITUDE  OF  THE  LAITY 

Book.  .  .  .  praying  you  that  we  may'  receive  full  answer 
.  .  .  within  seven  days  after  your  receipt  hereof,  and  that 
the  same  be  done  without  respect  of  person  or  degree."  l 
All  hastened  to  fulfil  the  task  imposed  upon  them,  and  the 
result  is  embodied  in  a  series  of  documents  of  considerable 
interest.  But  the  value  of  the  different  returns  varies 
greatly,  as,  in  studying  them,  can  easily  be  seen.  Some 
returns  are  full  and  minute:  others  are  so  meagre  as  to  be 
well-nigh  worthless.  Some  contain  details  not  demanded 
by  the  Council ;  others, — but  these  are  few  in  number, — not 
confining  their  investigation  to  the  wealthy  alone,  make 
mention  of  men  who  are  "  poor,"  or  "  of  little  worth."  But 
it  will  be  seen  that,  in  the  main,  these  lists  furnish  us  with 
a  long  array  of  recusants  of  substance,  ninety-nine  hun- 
dredths of  whom  are  indubitably  Papists.  The  bishops  did 
not,  as  a  body,  direct  their  enquiries  to  the  Puritans,  Chey- 
ney  of  Oxford  alone  calling  attention  to  their  recalcitrance. 
We  have,  therefore,  in  these  returns,  as  far  as  they  go,  a 
body  of  first-hand  evidence  as  to  the  prevalence  and  per- 
sistence of  Popery  throughout  the  kingdom.  And,  though 
it  is  not  stated  totidem  verbis  in  these  documents,  by  im- 
plication we  are  forced  to  realise  that  each  name,  being 
that  of  a  head  of  a  family,  represents  the  other  members  of 
it,  as  well  as  a  suitable  number  of  servants  and  dependents, 
most,  if  not  all,  of  whom  would  have  been  almost  certainly 
recusants  as  well  as  their  masters.  Nevertheless,  the  returns 
are,  as  a  whole,  unsatisfactory,  for  it  is  evident  that  they 
are  far  from  being  complete  in  regard  to  many  of  the 
counties.  Durham  diocese,  for  instance,  being  avowedly 
very  popish  in  sentiment,  should  show  more  than  eight 
names;  and,  in  fact,  the  return  states:  "and  of  others  in 
Northumberland,  presently  we  cannot  advertise  your 
honours  of  any  certainty."  2  Archbishop  Sandys  sent  a  full 
report  concerning  his  diocese  and  those  of  his  suffragans. 
He  was  new  to  his  post  at  the  time,  so  could  not  "  come 
by  full  understanding  of  the  offenders;  but  these  are  too 

1  P.R.O.  Dom.  Eliz.,  cxvi,  No.  15. 

2  Ibid.,  Add.,  xxv,  No.  42  i. 


TO  THE  RELIGIOUS  CHANGES  549 

many,  whose  intolerable  insolency,  perverse  and  contempt- 
uous disobedience  is  with  speed  to  be  repressed,  or  else 
hardly  the  State  can  stand  in  quiet  safety.  ...  I  have 
already  laboured  what  I  can  since  my  coming  hither,  as 
well  by  persuasion  as  by  execution  of  discipline  to  reform 
them,  but  little  have  I  prevailed ;  for  a  more  stiff-necked, 
wilful,  or  obstinate  people  did  I  never  know  or  hear  of. 
Doubtless  they  are  reconciled  to  Rome  and  sworn  to  the 
Pope.  They  will  abide  no  conference,  neither  give  ear  to 
any  doctrine  or  persuasion.  Some  of  them  when  the  prayer 
for  the  Queen's  Majesty  hath  been  read  unto  them,  have 
utterly  refused  to  say  Amen  unto  it.  Others  do  glory  (and 
that  not  of  the  simplest  sort)  that  they  never  knew  what 
the  Bible  or  Testament  meant.  To  some  I  have  offered 
lodging  and  diet  in  my  house,  that  I  might  have  conference 
with  them  for  their  conformity,  but  they  chose  rather  to 
go  to  prison.  Thus  much  I  write  to  give  your  Lordships  a 
taste  of  their  evil  dispositions ;  and  most  of  them  have  been 
corrupted  by  one  Henry  Comberford,  a  most  obstinate 
popish  priest,  now  prisoner  at  Hull."  l  His  certificate  con- 
tains 168  laymen  and  one  priest  as  being  within  the  arch- 
diocese, and  some  eighteen  other  names  out  of  the  suffragan 
Sees;  while  a  supplementary  return  for  Nottingham  fur- 
nishes a  further  batch  of  fifteen.2  Certain  Lancashire  Justices 
in  making  their  return  afford  a  useful  example  of  friendly 
caution  in  extenuation  of  a  wholly  inadequate  list  from  so 
Catholic  a  county;  but  their  excuse  is:  "We  hear  an  un- 
certain rumour  of  some  lately  revolted  who  do  not  dutifully 
come  to  the  divine  service;  but  forasmuch  as  we  certainly 
know  not  the  same,  we  dare  not  impart  the  same  to  your 
Lordships  till  the  undoubted  truth  be  known  to  us."  They 
sent  up  only  thirty-five  names;  while  from  the  Chester 
diocese,  a  magistrate  could  muster  no  more  than  seven 
recusants.  Another  return,  however,  prepared  by  the  Bishop 
before  his  death  makes  mention  of  sixty-nine,  together  with 
"  two  old  priests  very  wilful  and  obstinate  remaining  in  the 

1  P.R.O.  Dom.  Eliz.,  CXVll,  No.  23. 

2  Ibid.,  No.  23  i  and  ii,  cxvni,  Nos.  2  and  2  i,  ii. 


55o  ATTITUDE  OF  THE  LAITY 

Castle  of  Chester."  1  Another  group  is  represented  by  three 
of  the  Welsh  dioceses  and  the  border  dioceses  of  Hereford, 
Gloucester,  and  Worcester;  and  here  comparison  is  invited 
with  the  Catholic  list  of  1574,  showing  how  thoroughly  in- 
adequate were  the  returns  of  1577.  The  Bishop  of  Bangor 
wrote  that  he  had  "  made  diligent  search,  and  at  this  pre- 
sent can  find  none  that  refuseth  to  come  to  the  church 
saving  one  old  priest."  2  The  Bishop  of  St.  David's  could 
mention  but  one  recusant,  "  howsoever  some  be  affected  in 
heart  and  infected  with  Papistry."  3  The  diocese  of  Llandaff 
provides  fourteen  laymen  and  four  priests,  but  there  is  a 
veiled  reference  to  "  about  200  besides  them." 4  A  later 
supplementary  return  gave  fifteen  of  these.'  Worcester  was 
burthened  with  thirty-nine  Papists,  while  Warwickshire 
adds  another  ten  to  the  total  'of  the  diocese.6  With  Scory 
at  the  head  of  Hereford  diocese  a  fuller  return  might  be 
expected;  and  though  it  is  not  so  instructive  as  the  list  of 
1574,  neverthless  it  sets  forth  fifty-three  names.  But  the 
main  interest  of  the  list  consists  in  the  graphic  details  it 
affords  of  the  opposition  offered  by  the  laity  of  his  diocese 
to  the  reformed  service.  We  learn  of  one  man  who  attends 
divine  service,  but  sits  so  far  away  that  "  he  neither  heareth 
nor  can  hear";  another  "walketh  up  and  down  in  time  of 
divine  service  in  a  place  so  far  off  that  he  cannot  hear." 
John  Breynton,  of  Crednill,  is  a  "  mocker  of  preachers  and 
of  this  religion  " ;  while  John  Hareley,  Esq.,  though  attend- 
ing his  parish  church,  "  read  so  loud  upon  his  Latin  popish 
Primer  (that  he  understandeth  not)  that  he  troubleth  both 
the  minister  and  the  people."7  From  Gloucester  diocese 
there  come  two  lists,  containing,  the  first  thirty-eight,  the 
second  seventy-nine,  names.  In  the  second  list  twenty-nine 
of  those  in  the  first  re-appear,  hence  the  real  number  of 
recusants  is  eighty-six.8 

1  P.R.O.  Dom.  Eliz.,  cxvm,  Nos.  45,  45  i  and  49. 

2  Ibid.,  cxvm,  No.  8.  3  Ibid.,  No.  1 1  i. 

4  Ibid.,  No.  11  ii.  5  Ibid.,  cxxn,  No.  31. 

6  Ibid.,  11  iv  and  v.  7  Ibid.,  cxvm,  Nos.  7  and  7  i. 

8  Ibid.,  cxvn,  No.  12  i,  and  cxvm,  No.  32  i. 


TO  THE  RELIGIOUS  CHANGES  551- 

From  the  eastern  side  of  England  comparatively  few 
names  come.  Peterborough  diocese  furnishes,  by  means 
of  two  lists,  five  and  six  names  respectively;  but,  on  com- 
parison, the  real  number  of  recusants  is  found  to  be  but 
six,  one  of  whom  was  reported  to  be  "  Mr.  Chambers  of 
Ediweston,  priest,  brother  to  my  Lady  St.  John  of  Bletsho."  1 
Ely  could  muster  only  nine  names,2  and  the  extensive 
diocese  of  Norwich,  once  so  fervently  Catholic,  could  show 
only  49  adherents  of  position.  The  return,  now  extant, 
refers  only  to  the  county  of  Norfolk,  it  must  be  remem- 
bered, and  not  to  the  whole  diocese.  Such  leading  names 
as  Bedingfeld,  Lovell,  Huddlestone,  Downes,  and  Jerning- 
ham,  of  course,  figure  largely  in  its  pages,  and  the  wealth 
of  many  of  these  recusants  appears  to  have  been  consider- 
able.3 For  the  rest,  it  is  not  a  satisfactory  document,  for 
Bishop  Freake  wrote :  "  having  no  time  either  to  take 
knowledge  of  the  one  sort,  nor  order  with  the  other,  I  am 
enforced  to  signify  very  confusedly  without  distinction  of 
the  men  and  matter";  hence  in  some  cases  it  is  impossible 
now  to  distinguish  in  every  instance  between  Papist  and 
Puritan.  The  Midlands,  with  the  possible  exception  of 
Staffordshire,  Shropshire,  and  Oxford,  seem  early  to  have 
embraced  the  reformed  religion  more  or  less  whole-heartedly; 
hence  the  returns,  though  incomplete,  do  not  disclose  names 
in  any  number. 

Two  very  full  returns,  replete  with  minute  details  of  very 
great  interest,  show  that  Oxfordshire,  with  the  University 
in  its  midst,  was  a  special  centre  of  Catholicity.  The  first 4 
contains  87  names,  not  counting  several  priests  referred  to 
here  and  there;  the  second  5  gives  the  names  of  145,  a  large 
number  of  whom  were  of  fair  or  considerable  wealth.  It 
may  be  taken  as  certain  that  the  fuller  list  represents  the 
actual  position  of  affairs,  and  that  for  all  practical  purposes 
it  repeats  and  includes  the  shorter  list,  which,  however,  is  of 
great  value  for  the  intimate  details  it  affords.    The  great 

1  P.R.O.  Dom.  Eliz.,  cxvn,  No.  16,  and  cxvm,  No.  29. 

2  Ibid.,  cxvm,  No.  28  i.  3  Ibid.,  cxvn,  No.  27  i. 
*  Ibid.,  cxvm,  No.  37  i.  s  Ibid.,  cxix,  No.  5  i. 


352  ATTITUDE  OF  THE  LAITY 

diocese  of  Lincoln  is  represented  by  only  seven  names  of 
wealthy  recusants.1  Only  four  gentlemen  are  returned 
from  Leicestershire  as  unwilling  to  attend  divine  service. 
This  perhaps  represents  nearly  the  truth,  for  the  Justices 
who  made  the  return  express  the  fervent  hope  that  "  all 
countries  under  her  Majesty's  government  [may  be]  as  free 
from  this  pernicious  sect  of  Papists  as  this  country  is."  ' 
Bedfordshire  was  almost  as  denuded  of  adherents  of  Rome, 
apparently  harbouring  but  nine  Papists  of  social  standing.3 
The  diocese  of  Coventry  and  Lichfield  still  maintained  a 
goodly  number  of  Papists.  Two  lists,  comprising  Derby- 
shire, Staffordshire,  and  that  portion  of  Salop  within  the 
limits  of  the  diocese,4  give  the  following  figures:  Stafford- 
shire, 105  and  119;  Derbyshire,  38  and  53;  Salop,  22  and 
26.  Striking  an  average,  it  may  be  said  that  this  portion 
of  England  had  still  182  Catholics  of  means. 

The  West  and  South  of  England,  including  the  diocese 
of  London,  makes  a  final  group.  The  Bishop  of  Bath  and 
Wells  sent  up  the  names  of  eight  recusants  in  Somerset- 
shire.5 Cornwall,  which  retained  its  Catholic  character  for 
a  longer  period,  had  30  recusants,  most  of  whom  were  men 
of  standing  and  large  possessions.6  Devon  furnishes  no 
return,  and  Dorset  is  represented  by  a  solitary  recusant 
"  who  hath  neither  lands  nor  goods,"  and  so  was  not  worth 
troubling  about.7  Wiltshire  is  represented  by  10  recusants/ 
Berkshire  by  49,  including  such  well-known  names  as  Yate, 
Fettiplace,  Wyndham,  and  Perkins.9  Surrey,  amongst  its 
25  recusants,  numbered  the  deprived  Archbishop  Nicholas 
Heath,  who  is  entered  as  "priest,  doth  not  come  to  the 
church."  Andrew  Silvertop,  of  Camberwell,  Esq.,  had  been 
"  convented  before  the  commissioners  "  nearly  two  years 
previously  "for  Massing  at  Westminster;  he  was  indicted 

1  P.R.O.  Dom.  Eliz.,  cxvn,  No.  13.  -  Ibid.,  CXVIII,  No.  34. 

3  Ibid.,  cxviii,  No.  50. 

*  Ibid.,  cxvm,  No.  17  i,  and  cxxil,  No.  28  i. 

5  Ibid.,  cxvm,  Nos.  16  i  and  72.  °  Ibid.,  cxvn,  No.  25  i. 

'  Ibid.,  cxvn,  No.  21.  8  Ibid.,  CXVll,  No.  26  i. 

9  Ibid.,  cxvn,  No.  17  i. 


TO  THE  RELIGIOUS  CHANGES  553 

for  the  same,  and  suffered  the  penalty  of  the  law."  A  like 
fate  had  befallen  Hugh  Ursley.  The  rest  in  the  list  were 
as  little  amenable  as  the  above.1 

The  obstinate  recusancy  of  the  Winchester  diocese  has 
more  than  once  been  referred  to  in  the  foregoing  pages. 
Lapse  of  years  could  not  show  much  improvement,  for  in 
1 577  Bishop  Home  sent  in  a  certificate  containing  58  names 
of  the  most  considerable  people  of  Hampshire,  of  whose 
continued  refusal  to  submit  he  then  complained,  with  a 
confession  of  his  own  inability  to  deal  with  them:  "most 
heartily  desirous  to  hear  that  your  wisdoms  will  devise 
some  such  remedy  in  these  causes  as  their  most  wilful 
obstinacy  may  be  the  better  restrained  and  corrected, 
which  daily  groweth  more  and  more." 2  The  Bishop  of 
Chichester  forwarded  22  names  to  the  Council,  for  the 
county  of  Sussex,  the  home  of  the  Gages  of  Firle,  Ash- 
burnhams,  Shelleys  of  Michelgrove,  Carylls  of  West  Grin- 
stead,  Coverts,  and  Hares.3  Kent,  representing  the  dioceses 
of  Rochester  and  Canterbury  (but  only  a  part  of  it),  sent 
in  31  names,  including  that  of  William  Roper  of  Eltham, 
Esq.,  of  whom  mention  has  already  been  made.4 

It  is  not  surprising  that  London,  while  in  the  van  of 
reform  or  love  of  change,  should  from  its  size,  its  power 
of  absorption,  the  ease  with  which  it  could  hide  those 
who  wished  to  escape  notice,  and  its  central  position,  also 
harbour  large  numbers  of  recusants.  That  Aylmer  should 
have  collected  but  173  names,  very  many  of  no  use  to  the 
Council  as  being  those  of  persons  of  the  working  class, 
worth  nothing  in  lands  or  goods,  speaks  much  for  the 
value  of  the  city  as  a  hiding  place.  The  utter  insigni- 
ficance of  most  of  the  names  precludes  the  possibility  of 
identifying  any  but  a  few  as  certainly  Papists  rather  than  as, 
possibly,  Puritans.5  Moreover,  this  list  includes  Middlesex 
and  portions  of  Essex.    A  separate  return  for  the  arch- 


P.R.O.  Dom.  Eliz.,  cxvil,  No.  14  i,  ii. 

Ibid.,  cxvn,  Nos.  10  and  10  i.  3  Ibid.,  cxvn,  No.  15. 

Ibid.,  cxvn,  Nos.  2  and  5  i.  5  Ibid.,  cxvin,  No.  72. 


554  ATTITUDE  OF  THE  LAITY 

deaconry  of  Colchester1  adds  18  names  for  Essex,  while 
4  more  come  from  Hertfordshire.2  In  estimating  the 
recusancy  of  the  diocese  of  London,  the  returns  from  the 
Inns  of  Court  and  Chancery  previously  dealt  with  must  not 
be  omitted ;  as  has  been  seen,  they  give  close  on  200  more 
names. 

Some  of  the  foregoing  returns  were  drawn  up  as  late  as 
February,  1577-8.  It  is  of  importance  to  bear  this  in  mind, 
for  the  totals  of  the  documents  referred  to  amount  to  1,650 
at  least,  whereas  the  Record  Office  contains  a  "Table, 
showing  the  number  of  Recusants"  as  being  but  1,387. 
This  was  made  out  on  30th  December,  1577,  and  is,  there- 
fore, incomplete.3  These  notes  may  fittingly  close  with  a 
reference  to  the  difficulties  experienced  by  the  recusants  in 
providing  a  suitable  education  for  their  children.  If  they 
wished  to  bring  them  up  at  home,  then  the  bishops  had 
something  to  say  as  to  the  schoolmasters  they  employed, 
realising  as  they  did  that  ofttimes  they  were  priests,  who 
combined  the  prosecution  of  their  sacred  ministry  with 
their  pedagogic  duties,  and  thus  helped  to  keep  the  Catholic 
Faith  alive.  If  they  sent  them  abroad  for  education  in  pro- 
perly constituted  colleges  and  schools,  to  be  trained  amid 
Catholic  surroundings  and  companions,  then  they  fell 
under  statutory  penalties.    It  is  of  interest,  then,  to  study  a 

1  P.R.O.  Dom.  Eliz.,  cxvm,  No.  44.  2  Ibid.,  cxvii,  No.  22. 

3  Ibid.,  CXIX,  No.  20.  For  purposes  of  comparison  with  the  Catholic 
list  of  1574,  especially,  but  also  in  a  minor  degree  with  the  returns 
of  1577,  reference  may  be  made  to  a  catalogue  of  names  of  the  most 
wealthy  people  in  the  kingdom,  for  their  levy  of  lances  (or  tax  for 
militia).  Those  who  are  marked  as  being  recusants  are  204  in  number, 
all  being  persons  whose  names,  from  their  position  in  their  respective 
counties,  are  well  known  (cf.  ibid.,  CXIX,  No.  26,  ?  December,  1577). 
Another  term  of  comparison  may  be  found  in  a  document  dated 
28th  April,  1580,  giving  the  "names  of  such  persons  as  have  been  con- 
vented  before  the  Commissioners  for  Causes  Ecclesiastical  at  London 
and  remain  abroad  upon  Bonds."  They  were  104  in  number,  while 
36,  seven  of  whom  were  priests,  were  in  prison  (cf.  Lansd.  MS.  360, 
No.  30,  f.  49).  Another  list  belonging  to  the  same  year  gives  the 
principal  recusants  as  being  256  in  number  (cf.  P.R.O.  Dom.  Eliz., 
CXLli,  No.  23)- 


TO  THE  RELIGIOUS  CHANGES  555 

list  of  persons  having  their  sons  at  school  abroad,  partly 
because  it  is  of  comparatively  early  date,  partly  because  of 
the  varied  nature  of  the  names.  There  were  at  that  time  at 
least  45  youths  abroad  known  to  the  Government  spies ; 
but  the  list  does  not  pretend  to  be  exhaustive.1 


I  have  endeavoured,  in  the  foregoing  pages,  to  state  the 
facts  connected  with  the  Elizabethan  religious  settlement 
without  any  regard  as  to  whether  what  was  effected  was, 
in  itself,  good  or  bad.  So  far  as  that  is  concerned,  people 
will  still  continue  to  hold  their  own  opinions.  From  what- 
ever standpoint,  however,  the  subject  has  been  approached, 
the  same  result  has  been  arrived  at.  Convocation  opposed 
the  Reformation  in  1559;  the  Marian  bishops,  as  represent- 
ing the  Church  in  Parliament,  without  a  single  exception 
voted  against  the  severance  from  Rome  implied  and  effected 
by  the  Acts  of  Supremacy  and  Uniformity;  and,  in  fact, 
that  severance  was  eventually  secured  only  by  the  narrowest 
of  majorities,  after  the  voting  strength  of  the  bishops  had 
been  lessened  by  stratagem.  The  clergy  of  all  ranks  suffered 
deprivation  in  fairly  large  numbers,  or  abandoned  their 
livings,  rather  than  acquiesce  in  the  consequent  changes  in 
Faith  and  practice.  Many  who  outwardly  conformed  re- 
mained, as  the  Elizabethan  bishops  repeatedly  confessed, 
Papists  at  heart;  while  others,  who  had  retired  from  their 
livings  either  by  choice  or  under  compulsion,  continued  to 
minister  by  stealth  to  those  Catholics  who  remained  staunch 
to  Rome.  The  bishops  complained  of  the  prevalence  of 
Popery  in  their  respective  dioceses  during  the  period  covered 
by  this  enquiry,  and  most  of  them  found  it  difficult  to 
make  any  real  headway  against  the  steady  opposition  they 
encountered.  Whatever  might  have  been  the  political 
motives  underlying  the  Rising  of  the  North  in  1569 — the 
sole  instance  of  a  popular  outbreak  against  Elizabeth's 
government — it  was  at  least  avowedly  in  order  to  restore 
the  old  Faith  and  worship,  but  not  to  harm  the  Queen. 

1  P.R.O.  Dom.  Eliz.,  cxlvi,  No.  137. 


556  ATTITUDE  OF  THE  LAITY 

The  learned  professions  were  Papist  to  the  core;  and  that 
part  of  the  nation  then  alone  thought  worthy  of  considera- 
tion, that  is,  the  local  magistracy,  the  county  gentry  and 
the  landowners,  long  remained  faithful  to  the  old  Creed ; 
and  their  dependents  naturally  followed  their  lead,  while 
their  sons  at  the  Universities  showed  themselves  no  less 
determined  to  maintain  their  connection  with  the  Church 
Universal.  These  are  not  gratuitous  assertions  or  ex  parte 
statements:  they  are  founded  on  the  witness  of  contempor- 
aries whose  authority  cannot  be  impugned,  for  they  have 
been  taken  almost  wholly  from  those  whose  interest  it 
would  best  have  served  had  they  been  able  to  boast  of 
triumph  rather  than  been  compelled  to  confess  failure. 
That  Elizabeth's  ministers  succeeded  in  the  end  in  Protest- 
antising England  is  only  too  patent;  but  it  was  not  an 
easy  task,  notwithstanding  even  their  astuteness  and  the 
unscrupulousness  of  their  methods;  nor  was  it  one,  as 
Dr.  Mandell  Creighton  supposed,  which  "  was  welcomed  by 
the  people  and  corresponded  to  their  wishes."  Such  a  state- 
ment, in  the  face  of  the  evidence  here  adduced,  can  no 
longer  be  maintained,  and  ought  never  to  be  repeated. 

The  period  embraced  by  this  enquiry  found  England,  at 
its  close,  in  much  the  same  position,  from  the  standpoint  of 
the  religious  sentiments  of  the  people,  as  it  had  been  at  its 
opening.  It  was  realised  by  the  leaders  of  reform  that  differ- 
ent measures  from  those  hitherto  employed,  more  stringent 
and  severe,  must  be  resorted  to,  if  the  ends  desired  were 
ever  to  be  attained.  The  grounds  to  justify  Elizabeth's 
ministers  in  adopting  this  sterner  policy  were  supplied  by 
the  outburst  of  Catholic  activity  which  followed  on  the 
arrival  of  the  Seminary  priests  and  the  Jesuits.  As  a  result 
of  the  labours  of  these  missionaries  amongst  all  classes, 
lukewarm  and  timorous  Catholics  took  courage  and  openly 
ranged  themselves  on  the  side  of  the  old  order  by  refusing 
any  longer  to  show  even  outward  conformity  to  the  parlia- 
mentary religion,  notwithstanding  the  terrible  nature  of  the 
penalties  to  which  they  not  only  laid  themselves  open,  but 
which   they   cheerfully  and  unflinchingly   suffered.      The 


TO  THE  RELIGIOUS  CHANGES  557 

number  of  avowed  and  practising  Catholics  increased  by 
leaps  and  bounds,  and  this  revolt  was  met  by  the  infliction 
of  the  death  penalty  with  all  the  accompanying  barbarities 
reserved  for  the  crime  of  treason.  Till  then,  as  even  Lord 
Burghley  had  boasted,  resort  had  not  been  had  to  these 
extremities.  It  is  possible, — it  is  at  least  thinkable, — that  if 
the  missionaries  from  beyond  the  seas  had  one  and  all  con- 
fined their  labours  strictly  within  their  legitimate  sphere — 
that  of  discharging  their  purely  spiritual  functions — (and 
the  vast  majority  of  them  certainly  never  outstepped  these 
limits),  England  might  without  much  difficulty  have  been 
won  back  and  restored  to  the  Unity  of  the  Church.  The 
new  phase  entered  upon  in  1580  has  so  little  in  common 
with  the  conditions  that  have  here  been  under  investiga- 
tion, as  to  require  separate  treatment,  and  this  enquiry 
may,  therefore,  be  brought  to  a  close. 


NDEX 


ABBOT,  Rob.  (Abp.  of  Cant.),  refers 
to  Catholic  priest,  301. 

Ack worth,  Dr.  Geo.,  visits  Corpus 
Christi  Coll.,  Oxon,  275;  visits  New 
College  (1566),  279. 

Act  to  validate  consecration  of  Bishops, 
539  and  n. ;  for  ministers  of  the 
Church  to  be  of  sound  religion,  542. 

Acton,  Lord,  (late),  vii,  x. 

Adbolton  parish,  sequestration  of,  144. 

Alba,  Duke  of,  distrusts  sincerity  of 
English  Catholics  in  desire  to  rise 
against  Elizabeth,  483 ;  forbids  Guerau 
de  Spes  to  plot  against  Elizabeth, 
490. 

Allegiance,  spiritual  and  temporal,  held 
not  to  clash,  526-7. 

Allen,  Edmund,  designated  for  Roch- 
ester diocese,  231,  238;  died,  231, 
238;  doubtful  as  to  real  conformity 
of  people,  503  and  n. 

Allen,  Thos.,  of  Trin.  Coll.,  Oxon,  re- 
cusant, 288;  at  Gloucester  Hall,  292. 

Allen,  William,  Cardinal,  educated  at 
Oxford,  255;  on  refusal  of  Bishops 
to  crown  Elizabeth,  36  n. ;  gives  no 
information  about  deprived  clergy 
remaining  in  England,  190;  records 
sacrilege  of  some  Marian  priests,  299 ; 
refers  to  staunchness  of  some  Marian 
clergy,  300;  refers  to  secret  labours  of 
Marian  clergy,  302. 

Allerdale,  deanery  of,  all  absentees  in, 
pronounced  contumacious,  156. 

Alley,  William  (Bp.  of  Exeter),  with- 
out promotion,  230;  reports  on  dio- 
cese, 370. 

All  Souls  College,  Oxon,  280. 


Antwerp,    English    Papist    printer   at, 

545- 
Apology  for  the  Ch.  ofEng. ,  Bp.  Jewel's, 

408. 
Apontborowe  parish  without  reformed 

service  books,  164. 
Apostolicae  Cnrae,  Bull,  and  Anglican 

Orders,  246. 
Arden,   Thos.,   absent  from  visitation, 

deprived,  149;  a  priest  harboured  in 

Hereford,  364,  366,  368. 
Arden,    recusant  family  of  Oxfordsh., 

404. 
Arncliff,    parish   of,    without   reformed 

service  books,  164. 
Arthureth,  parish  of,  popish,  315. 
"  Articles  "  drawn  up  by  Convocation, 

58;  (Grindal's)  to  root  out  Catholic 

practices  in  Yorkshire,  328  n. 
Arundel,     Altars     still     standing     at, 

428. 
Arundel,  Earl  of,  expresses  willingness 

to  rejoin  Catholic  Church,  482,  483  ; 

said  to  desire  change  of  religion,  485  ; 

arrested,  486 ;  questioned  by  Council, 

487;  imprisoned,  490. 
Arundell,    Sir    John,    of  Lanherne,    a 

Papist,  371 ;  refuses  oath  of  Supre- 
macy, 520. 
Ashbrooke,  John,  priest,  deprived,  204, 

205. 
Ashburnham,  family,  recusants,  553. 
Assheton,  Thos.,   explains  hollowness 

of  outward  conformity,  521  and  n. 
Astlow,    Astlowe,  Atleslow,    Atselow, 

Dr.  Edw.,  of  New  Coll.,  Oxon,  278; 

a  recusant,  445-6;  ill  in  the  Tower, 

445-6- 
59 


560 


INDEX 


Atkinson,  Geo.,  chaplain,  charged  with 
concealing  church  stuff,  275. 

Atkinson,  Mr.,  speaks  in  House  of 
Commons  against  anti-papist  legisla- 
tion, 538. 

Atkinson,  Thomas,  "ousted,"  160. 

Atkyns,  Ant.,  of  Merton  Coll.,  Oxon, 
deprived,  286  and  n. 

Atkynson,  John,  "ousted,"  160. 

Aubrey,  Vicar-Genl.  of  Cant.,  urges 
visitation  of  Hereford  Cathedral,  365. 

Avery,  a  servant,  recusant,  398. 

Awdley,    Mrs.,    her   son  sent  abroad, 

515- 
Aylmer,  John  (Bp.),  educated  at  Camb., 
255;  proposed  for  See  of  Gloucester, 
230 ;  suggests  use  of  rack,  332 ;  be- 
comes Bp.  of  London,  463;  proposes 
plan  for  dealing  with  Papists  by  illegal 
fining,  463-4;  instances  of  his  want 
of  principle,  465-6 ;  suggests  Puritan 
ministers  to  be  sent  to  Lancashire, 
466;  promises  post  for  Dethick  un- 
justly, 466 ;  reports  Mass  being  said 
at  Colchester,  466;  seizes  printing 
press,  469 ;  captures  Carter,  a  Catho- 
lic printer,  469;  complains  to  L. 
Burghley  of  want  of  support,  470; 
says  Protestants  are  upbraided  for  not 
fasting,  523 ;  wants  to  increase  fines 
from  recusants  by  illegal  means,  546-7; 
makes  list  of  recusants  in  diocese  of 
London,  553. 

Babington,  Fras.,  of  Balliol  Coll., 
Oxon,  recusant,  deprived,  283;  at 
Lincoln  Coll.,  284. 

Babthorpe,  SirW.,  recusant,  325;  per- 
secuted by  Abp.  of  York,  539. 

Bacon,  Sir  Nicholas,  educated  at  Cam- 
bridge, 254;  leading  spirit  of  Re- 
formation, 14;  made  Chancellor,  14; 
President  of  Westminster  Conference, 
105 ;  endeavours  at  Westm.  Confer- 
ence to  put  Catholics  in  the  wrong, 
118;  breaks  up  Westm.  Conference, 
1 10;  orders  Cath.  Bishops  not  to  re- 
turn home  without  permission,  209; 
selects  Parker  as  Abp.,  232  sqq.;  an- 


nounces to  Parker  his  selection  as 
Abp.  of  Cant.,  234;  forwards  to  Abp. 
Parker  royal  assent  to  his  election, 
236;  averse  from  "extreme  and 
bloody  laws, "  539. 

Bacon,  Dr.  Thomas,  Master  of  Gon- 
ville  Hall,  Camb.,  266. 

Bagshaw,  Christopher,  of  Balliol  Coll., 
Oxon,  283,  284. 

Bailey,  Dr.  Thos.,  expelled  from  Clare 
Hall,  Camb.,  263. 

Baker's  Chronicle  on  number  of  de- 
prived clergy,  123. 

Baker,  Dr.  Philip,  account  of,  264-6; 
deprivation  of,  392;  deprived  of  Lon- 
don living,  442. 

Bale,  John  (Bp. ),  educated  at  Oxford, 
255 ;  mandate  to,  to  consecrate  Abp., 
241 ;  name  of  See  in  Ireland,  244  ».; 
consecrated  by  K.  Edw. 's  Ordinal, 
246. 

Ballard,  John,  priest,  of  Gonville,  268. 

Balliol  Coll.,  Oxon,  account  of,  282 
sqq. 

Bangor  Dioc,  report  on  and  statistics 
about,  344;  report  on,  much  Popery 
prevalent,  346-7. 

Banister,  recusant  family,  in  Hants, 
422. 

Bapthorpe,  Rob.,  conformed,  1 5 1-2. 

Barber,  B.,  priest,  400. 

Barber,  Ric,  Warden  of  All  Souls  Coll., 
Oxon,  recusant,  281. 

Barker  [Roger],  of  Balliol  Coll.,  Oxon, 
resigned,  283. 

Barker,  Humphrey,  "  old  priest  ...  a 
very  poor  man,"  in  Bangor  diocese 
in  1577,  347- 

Barlow,  William,  Bp.,  educated  at  Ox- 
ford, 254;  account  of,  424;  if  con- 
secrated, then  by  Roman  Pontifical, 
246;  proposed  for  See  of  Chichester, 
230;  designated  for  Chichester,  231; 
appointed  to  Chichester,  216;  elected 
by  Chapter  of  Chichester,  237 ;  royal 
mandate  to,  to  consecrate  Parker 
Archbishop,  219,  236;  second  man- 
date to,  to  consecrate  Abp.,  24 1; 
consecrates  Parker  Abp.,  248. 


INDEX 


561 


Barnes,  Richard,  Bp.,  promoted  to 
Durham,  308;  makes  a  return  of  re- 
cusants, 308;  gives  good  report  of 
Northumberland,  309;  gives  bad  re- 
port of  stubbornness  in  Durham  and 
Richmondshire,  309;  translated  to 
Carlisle,  313;  gives  glowing  account 
of  new  diocese,  313  ;  reports  rumours 
of  rebellion  in  Lancashire,  315;  re- 
ports on  his  diocese,  mostly  conform- 
able, 315. 
Bartholomew   (no   surname),  priest  in 

Lincolnshire,  532. 
Barton,  Geo.,  priest,  deprived,  442  n. 
Basford,  B.,  S.J.,  468. 
Bates,  Thos.,  a  Justice  "misliked"  for 

recusancy,  340. 
Bateson,  Miss,  on  Bishops'  certificates 

of  state  of  dioceses,  339-40. 
Bath,  gatherings  of  Papists  there,  376-7 ; 
Bonner's     kinsfolk     residing     there, 
377- 
Bath  and  Wells,  Diocese  of,  Institutions 
to  benefices  in,  198;  Popery  in,  373- 
7 ;  recusants  in,  552. 
Battle,   "the  popish  town  in  all  Sus- 
sex," 428. 
Bauger,  Fras.,  of  Exeter  Coll.,  Oxon, 

resigns,  294. 
Bavant,   John,    of    St.   John's,    Oxon, 

290. 
Bayne,  Ralph  (Bp.),  educated  at  Camb., 
255;  present  in  Parliament,  46;  de- 
mands impartial  hearing  at  Westmin- 
ster Conference,  109;  dismisses  his 
servants,  209;  deprived,  215;  death 
of,  223. 
Beacon,  Thomas,  proposed  for  See  of 

Rochester,  230. 
Beaumaris,  clergy  of,  use  "disordered 

service  "  for  the  dead,  347. 
Beckote,  Rob.,  a  Papist,  371. 
Beconsawe,  recusant  family,  in  Hants, 

422. 
Bedford,  Earl  of,  reports  on  Popery  in 
York  diocese,  324;  reports  unfavour- 
ably on  Durham  Justices,  340. 
Bedfordshire,  free  of  recusants,  552. 
Bedill,  Mr.,  suspected  Papist,  264. 

O 


Bedingfeld,  Sir  Henry,  refuses  oath  of 

Supremacy,  520. 
Bedingfeld,  family,  recusants,  551. 
Bell,  Wm.,  probably  deprived,  152. 
Belsire,  Dr.  Alex.,  Head  of  St.  John's, 
Oxon,    deprived,    289;    memory   of, 
defended,  289  n. 
Belson,  recusant  family,  in  Oxfordshire, 

404. 
Bencastle,  parish  of,  popish,  315. 
Benedictines,  restored  under  Mary,  127 
sqq.;  disbanded,   132;   fate  of,   135; 
English,  causes  of,  escaping  extinc- 
tion, 136. 
Benger,  Sir  Thos.,  Visitor  of  Oxford 

Univ.,  272. 
Bennet,  Wm.,  sequestered,  154. 
Bentham,  Thomas  (Bp.),   educated  at 
Oxford,    254;    account    of,    394-5; 
leading  spirit  among  reformers,  22; 
proposed  for  See  of  Cov.  and  Lichf., 
230;   consecrated    Bp.   of  Cov.   and 
Lichf.,  250;  instructions  for  visitation 
of  diocese  of  Cov.  and  Lichf.,  396-7; 
reports  on  Popery  in  his  diocese,  399 
sqq. ;  revises  list  of  recusants,  400. 
Bentinck,  Mr.  G.  Cavendish,  on  identi- 
fication of  II  Schifanoya,  41  n. 
Bereblock,  John,  of  St.  John's,  Oxon, 

291. 
Berkeley,  Gilbert  (Bp.),  educated  at 
Oxford,  254;  consecrated  Bp.  of  Bath 
and  Wells,  250,  373 ;  institutions 
during  his  Episcopate,  198 ;  im- 
poverished, 373;  explains  action  of 
Catholic  Bishops  in  leasing  their 
lands,  375 ;  reports  on  diocese, 
376. 
Best,  John,  consecrated  Bp.  of  Carlisle, 
250;  310;  deluded  as  to  real  senti- 
ments of  diocese,  311;  gives  bad  re- 
port of  stubbornness,  etc.,  of  priests, 
311  ;  reports  rumours  of  risings,  311  ; 
Justices  "wink  at  all  things,"  311; 
reports  badly  on  Justices,  341 ;  com- 
plains of  recusancy  in  diocese  of  Car- 
lisle, 522;  death  of,  313. 
Beynton,  image  of  Our  Lady  at,  used 
for  pilgrimage,  165. 


562 


INDEX 


Bill,  Dr.  Wm.,  appointed  Provost  of 
Eton  College,  203;  said  to  be  ap- 
pointed to  Salisbury,  216;  Dean  of 
Westminster  and  Provost  of  Eton, 
216;  proposed  for  London  diocese, 
230 ;  appointed  Visitor  of  Cambridge, 
260;  death  of,  203. 

Bill  for  Recognition  of  Queen's  Title 
to  Crown,  61  sqq.;  Bill  declaring 
certain  offences  to  be  Treason,  62; 
Bill  declaring  Queen  heritable  to 
Queen  Anne  Boleyn,  62;  Bill  for 
Treasons,  63;  Bill  to  render  certain 
slanders  against  Queen  punishable, 
63;  Bill  to  restore  spiritual  persons 
deprived,  64;  Bill  to  restore  de- 
prived Bishops,  65;  Bill  to  legalise 
deprivation  of  Bishops,  etc.,  65  sqq. ; 
Bill  for  making  eccl.  laws  by  thirty- 
two  persons,  66 ;  Bill  that  no  persons 
shall  be  punished  for  using  Edward's 
religion,  66;  Bill  for  leases  to  be 
made  by  spiritual  persons,  67;  Bill 
for  giving  Chantries  to  Crown,  67, 
68;  Bill  for  admitting  and  conse- 
crating Abps.  and  Bishops,  67;  Bill 
for  collation  of  Bishops,  68;  Feria 
on,  70;  II  Schifanoyaon,  70;  Burnet 
on,  70;  Bill  for  Dissolution  of  Mona- 
steries, 71;  II  Schifanoya  on,  71  n., 
72 ;  Bill  of  Supremacy,  72  sqq. ;  sup- 
porters and  opponents  of,  in  H.  of 
Lords,  76,  78. 

Bills  that  effected  severance  from  Rome, 
56. 

Bird,  Wm.,  composer,  wife  of,  recusant, 
469. 

Birkenhead, ,  Clerk  of  the  Peace  in 

Herts,  a  recusant,  444. 

Birrell,  Rt.  Hon.  A.,  "it  is  the  Mass 
that  matters,"  505  n. 

Bishop,  Dr.  Wm.,  resided  at  Gloucester 
Hall,  292. 

Bishops  (Catholic)  to  be  coerced,   17; 
refuse  to  crown  Elizabeth,  36;  pre-    | 
sent  in  Parliament,  list  of,  46;  oppose 
Bill  of  Supremacy,  79 ;  influence  of,    j 
in  H.  of  Lords,  feared,  119;  ordered 
to   remain   in   London,  215;   leased 


lands,  etc.,  to  hamper  Protestant  suc- 
cessors, 374  and  n. 

Bishops,  Elizabethan  and  Marian,  com- 
pared on  subject  of  persecution,  333. 

Bishops  (Protestant)  begin  making 
visitation  of  dioceses,  inhibited  from 
continuing,  183;  -elect,  petition  Eliz. 
against  exchange  of  bishops'  lands, 
240;  admit  failure  of  Reformation, 
297;  suggest  putting  Q.  of  Scots  to 
death,  331-2;  Act  to  validate  con- 
secration of,  539  and  n. 

Blackwell,  Geo.,  of  Trin.  Coll.,  Oxon, 
recusant :  Archpriest,  288 ;  at  Glou- 
cester Hall,  292. 

Blakiston,  Rev.  H.  E.  D.,  on  Popery 
in  Trin.  Coll.,  Oxon,  288. 

Blandy  [Wm.]  of  New  Coll.,  Oxon, 
deprived  for  Popery,  279. 

Blaxton  [John],  a  priest  harboured  in 
Hereford,  364,  366,  368. 

Blethyn,  Wm.,  Bp.  of  Llandaff,  reports 
state  of  diocese,  351-2. 

Blithe,  G.,  absent  from  visitation, 
149. 

Blount,  scholar  of  Balliol,  suspect 
Papist,  284. 

Blunston,  Rob.,  "ousted"  (consenting), 
160. 

Blythe,  visitation  at,  147. 

Boast,  Lancelot,  recusant,  prophecies 
found  on,  441  n. 

Bonner,  Edmund  (Bp.),  educated  at 
Oxford,  255 ;  ordered  to  provide  vest- 
ments for  Coronation,  36;  present  in 
Parliament,  46;  ordered  to  stop  Mass 
at  St.  Paul's,  refused,  505 ;  dismisses 
his  servants,  209;  ordered  to  vacate 
See  of  London,  231;  succeeded  by 
Edm.  Grindal,  435 ;  oath  of  Supre- 
macy administered  to  him,  210;  de- 
prived, 95,  210;  intrepidity  of,  211; 
Abp.  Young  wishes  him  proceeded 
against,  325  ;  528 ;  oath  administered 
to,  successfully  questions  Bp.  Home's 
right,  538-9. 

Boreham,  Mass  at,  456,  515. 

Borley,  Mass  at,  456,  528;  raided  for 
Mass-stuff,  528. 


INDEX 


563 


Bothwell,  murders  Darnley,  carries  off 
Mary  Q.  of  Scots  and  marries  her, 
477- 

Bourne,  Gilbert  (Bp.),  educated  at 
Oxford,  255  ;  absent  from  Parliament, 
45,  217;  receives  mandate  to  con- 
secrate Parker  Abp.,  219,  236;  re- 
fused, 220,  236;  credited  with  good 
management  of  dioc.  of  Bath  and 
Wells,  373;  deprived,  222. 

Bourne,  Sir  John,  imprisoned,  15; 
quarrels  with  Bp.  Sandys,  356. 

Bourne,  Ric. ,  helps  his  brother,  Bp. 
Bourne,  373. 

Bowell,  Hy.,  deprived,  145. 

Bowes,  Sir  George,  besieged  in  Barnard 
Castle,  494. 

Boxall,  Dr.  John,  educated  at  Oxford, 
255 ;  does  not  attend  Protestant  ser- 
vice, 472. 

Boyes,  Wm.,  sequestered,  147. 

Bradbridge,  Augustine,  Chancellor  of 
Chichester,  426. 

Bradbridge,  Wm.,  Dean  of  Sarum, 
426;  Bp.  of  Exeter,  371 ;  reports  on 
Papists,  371. 

Bradbury,  John,  priest,  400. 

Bramstone,  Thos.,  of  St.  John's,  Oxon, 
290  and  n. 

Brassie,  Rob.,  264. 

Braye,  R.,  of  All  Souls  Coll.,  Oxon, 
recusant,  281. 

Breynton,  John,  recusant,  550. 

Brian,  Fr.,  of  Balliol  Coll.,  Oxon,  283. 

Bridge,  Hist,  of  Northamptonshire, 
289  n. 

Bridgett,  Fr.,  denies  interview  between 
Q.  Eliz.  and  Cath.  bishops,  209; 
correction  of  statement  by,  218. 

Bridgettines  restored  under  Mary,  129  ; 
dispersed,  134;  supported  in  exile  by 
K.  Philip,  135. 

Bridgewater,  John,  educated  at  Oxford, 
255;  Rector  of  Lincoln  Coll.,  Oxon, 
deprived,  285;  unable  to  arrive  at 
true  numbers  of  deprivations,  186; 
list  of  deprived  clergy  confessedly 
incomplete,  191;  omissions  in,  301. 

Bridlington,  images  there  kept,  165. 


Brill,  Stephen,  All  Souls  Coll.,  Oxon, 

recusant,  281. 
Bristol    Dioc.    of,    vacant    livings    in, 

376. 
Bristow,  Ric,  educated  at  Oxford,  255. 
Bristowe,   R.,  of  Exeter  Coll.,  Oxon, 

fled,  294. 
Brodrick,   Mr.,  on  Popery  in   Merton 

Coll.,  Oxon,  285-7. 
Bromborough  [Edward],  of  New  Coll. , 

Oxon,  put  in  prison,  279. 
Bromley,    Geo.,    recommended,    as   a 

Reformer,  for  legal  post,  447. 
Brooksby,     Humphrey,    of    All    Souls 

Coll.,  Oxon,  contumacious,  2S1. 
Browne,  ,    "a   traitorous   priest" 

openly    maintained     in    Lancashire, 

314. 

Bruerne  {or  Brewarne),  Richard,  elected 
Provost  of  Eton  College,  deprived, 
203  sqq. 

Brytayne,  Geo.,  recusant,  412. 

Bucer,  Martin,  professor  at  Oxford, 
255  ;  at  Cambridge,  253. 

Buckland,  visitation  at,  153. 

Buckley,  Sigebert,  means  of  saving 
English  Benedictines  from  extinction, 
136. 

Buckmaster,  Thos.,  priest,  deprived, 
442  n. 

Bullingham,  Nicholas  (Bp.),  educated 
at  Oxford,  254;  succeeds  Watson  as 
Bp.  of  Lincoln,  393;  consecrated 
Bp.  of  Lincoln,  250. 

Bullock,  Dr.  Geo.,  sequestered  and  later 
deprived,  156;  "ousted,"  160;  re- 
moved from  St.  John's,  Camb., 
263. 

Burcher,  John,  character  of,  223-4; 
praises  Cambridge,  253. 

Burghley,  Lord.    See  Cecil,  Sir  Wm. 

Burnet,  Gilbert,  dependent  on  Camden, 
120;  on  Bill  for  recognising  Queen's 
title  to  Crown,  61  n. ;  on  Bill  for 
collation  of  Bishops,  70  and  n.  •  on 
number  of  deprived  clergy,  122;  on 
offer  of  pensions  to  facilitate  resigna- 
tions, 194. 

Bury,  recusancy  of  clergy  in,  164. 


564 


INDEX 


Burye,      Wm,,       sequestered,       157 ; 

"  ousted,"  160. 
Butcher,  Dr.  Wm.,  urged  by  Bp.  Home 

to  resign  Mastership  of  Corp.  Christi 

Coll.,  Oxon,  274. 
Butler,   Thos.,   of  New  Coll.,   Oxon, 

278. 
Byam,  Thos.,  priest,  deprived,  442  n. 
Byng,  Dr.,  superintends  pillage  of  Dr. 

Caius'  rooms,  267. 

Caius,  Dr.  John,  account  of,  266-7;  a 
Papist,  445. 

Caius  and  Gonville  Coll.,  Papists  from, 
268-9. 

Calais,  negotiations  about  restoration 
of,  to  England,  34. 

Calf  hill,  James,  on  ignorance  of  new 
Protestant  clergy,  194;  acknowledges 
ordination  of  ignorant  mechanics,  439; 
laments  that  Oxford  is  still  Papist, 
272. 

Calvin  urges  importance  of  Universities 
on  Edw.  VI,  253. 

Cambridge  University  leader  in  reform, 
2^sqq.;  praised  by  Burcher,  253; 
produced  most  reforming  bishops, 
254  ;  lists  of  reformer  alumni,  254-5  ; 
Catholic  ditto,  254-5;  statistics  of 
degrees  at,  in  sixteenth  cent.,  259; 
visitation,  and  Visitors  of,  260 ;  Latin 
services  allowed  at,  269;  in  1592, 
many  Papists  reported  in  Colleges, 
270. 

Camden  ultimate  authority  for  many  on 
Elizabethan  history,  120;  relies  on 
Sander  and  Bridgewater  for  informa- 
tion on  deprived  clergy,  124;  on  de- 
privation of  clergy,  123;  on  number 
of  deprived  clergy,  188. 

Campion,  Edmund,  S.J.,  educated  at 
Oxford,  255;  of  St.  John's,  Oxon, 
290  and  n. ;  refers  to  secret  labours 
of  Marian  clergy,  302 ;  saved  Oxford 
students  from  taking  oath  of  Su- 
premacy, 507. 

Canterbury  city,  Corpus  Christi  proces- 
sion at,  505. 

Canterbury    Diocese,    suitable    bishop 


needed  for,  231  sqq. ;  conge  a*  Hire  is- 
sued, 235;  particulars  and  statistics 
of,  471-4;  recusants  in,  553. 

Cardwell,  Dr.,  on  motives  underlying 
holding  of  Westminster  Conference, 
101. 

Carew,  Dr.  Geo.,  sings  Mass  at  Corona- 
tion, 37. 

Carew,  Lady,  has  Mass  in  her  house, 
457,  528. 

Carewe,  Matthew,  Archdeacon  of  Nor- 
folk, fled  beyond  the  sea,  380. 

Carlisle  Cathedral,  dilapidations  at, 
312;  prebendaries  badly  reported  of, 
312. 

Carlisle  Deanery,  all  absentees  in,  pro- 
nounced contumacious,  156. 

Carlisle  Diocese,  visitation  of,  156^^.; 
number  of  livings  in,  163;  return  of 
vacant  livings  in,  338;  opposed  to 
Reformation,  339;  bad  report  on 
Justices  of,  341;  Popery  in,  310.^.; 
recusancy  in,  522. 

Came,  Sir  Edw.,  English  Ambassador 
at  Rome,  7. 

Carr,  Ric,  expelled  from  Magdalen 
Coll.,  Camb.,  263. 

Carter,  Wm.,  printer,  seized,  469;  ex- 
ecuted, 470 ;  Treatise  of Schism,  470; 
The  Innocency  of  the  Scottish  Queen, 
470. 

Carthusians  revived  under  Mary,  126 ; 
dispersed,  134;  supported  in  exile  by 
K.  Philip,  135. 

Carus,  Mr.,  house  of,  raided  to  find 
priests  and  Papists,  462,  532. 

Caryll,  of  West  Grinstead,  family,  re- 
cusants, 553. 

Caryll,  Mr.,  high  opinion  of,  446-7. 

Catalogus  Cancellariorum,  259. 

Catesby,  Sir  Wm.,  and  family,  resided 
at  Gloucester  Hall,  Oxon,  292. 

Catholics,  strength  of,  79;  in  prison, 
list  of,  303 ;  their  willingness  to  rise 
in  favour  of  Mary,  Q.  of  Scots,  483 ; 
treated  with  rigour  before  Rising  of 
the  North,  484.     See  also  Papists. 

Cave,  Sir  Ambrose,  seizes  papers  of 
bishops,  no. 


INDEX 


565 


Cawker,  Mrs.,  "  notorious  Papist," has 
Mass  in  her  house  in  Charterhouse, 
53i- 

Cecil,  Sir  William,  appointed  Secretary, 
II;  leading  spirit  of  Reformation, 
14;  keen  on  reformation,  47  n. ;  edu- 
cated at  Camb.,  254;  foretells  mob 
violence  years  before  Elizabeth's 
reign,  510;  brings  royal  message  to 
Commons  to  expedite  Bill  of  Supre- 
macy, 83;  projects  promotions  for 
Protestants,  230;  determined  on  new 
occupants  for  Sees  before  they  were 
vacant,  230;  selects  Parker  as  Abp., 
232  sqq. ;  notes  by,  on  legal  diffi- 
culties about  consecration  of  Abp., 
242  sqq. ;  expresses  pleasure  at  sup- 
posed conformity  of  Bp.  Tunstall, 
221;  appointed  Visitor  of  Cambridge, 
260 ;  on  John  Bale's  Irish  See,  244  «. ; 
orders  papist  students  at  Universities 
to  be  "stayed"  in  1569,  270;  treat- 
ment of  Bp.  Downham,  316;  notes 
nepotism  of  Bp.  Sandys,  361 ;  orders 
enquiry  as  to  violence  offered  to  Bp. 
Scory,  368 ;  remonstrates  with  French 
Ambassador  for  having  Mass  in  his 
house,  456;  dreaded  Mary  Q.  of 
Scots'  advent  to  English  throne,  479; 
Spanish  Ambassador's  description  of, 
481;  notes  disposition  of  leaders  in 
North,  491 ;  regulations  made  by,  for 
better  observance  of  Lent,  524-5 ; 
increases  fines  for  recusancy,  540 ; 
organises  a  register  of  recusants,  546. 

Ceremonies,  Catholic,  lingering,  evid- 
ence of,  328  n. 

Chaderton,  Wm.,  Bp.  of  Chester,  re- 
ports obstinacy  of  recusants,  322. 

Chaloner,  Sir  Thos.,  at  loss  to  explain 
abroad  burning  of  roods,  172-3;  sus- 
picious of  Bp.  Quadra,  452. 

Chambers,  John,  of  Ediweston,  priest, 
386,  55i- 

Chapman,  — ,  Puritan  minister,  466. 

Chauncy,  Dom  Maurice,  Prior  of  Car- 
thusians, 126;  maintained  abroad, 
545- 

Chedleton,  Thos.,  priest,  400. 


Chedsey,  Dr.  Wm.,  educated  at  Ox- 
ford, 255. 

Chedsey,  Dr.  Wm.,  Head  of  Corp. 
Christi  Coll.,  Oxon,  causes  of  his  re- 
signation, 275. 

Cheshire,  almost  as  popish  as  Lanca- 
shire, 319. 

Chester  Diocese,  visitation  of,  157  sqq.; 
number  of  livings  in,  163;  Church 
property  being  preserved  for  restora- 
tion of  Catholicism,  165;  return  of 
state  of,  338;  Popery  in,  315  sqq.  ; 
catalogue  of  recusants  in,  322;  recu- 
sancy in,  533,  549. 

Cheston,  T.,  absent  from  visitation, 
149;  probably  deprived,  151. 

Cheyney,  Richard  (Bp.),  educated  at 
Camb.,  255;  Bp.  of  Gloucest.,  372; 
not  inclined  to  persecute  Catholics, 
reported  on  Puritans  instead,  372; 
reports  on  Puritans  rather  than  Pa- 
pists, 548. 

Chichester,  City  of,  very  popish  in  feel- 
ing, 43°- 

Chichester  Diocese,  particulars  and 
statistics  of,  424-32;  recusants  in, 
553- 

Child,  Mr.,  on  attitude  of  Convocation 
towards  Reformation,  40;  on  result 
of  Westm.  Conference,  119. 

Chobham,  Mass  at,  531. 

Church  of  England,  now,  not  con- 
tinuous with  pre-Reformation  Church, 
96  sqq. 

Churches  shut  against  Protestant  ser- 
vice, 181. 

Churchyard,  Thos.,  reports  on  meet- 
ings of  Papists  at  Bath,  376-7. 

Clark,  Rev.  A.,  on  Popery  in  Lincoln 
Coll.,  Oxon,  284. 

Clarke,  — ,  Puritan  Minister,  466. 

Clement,  T.,  absent  from  visitation: 
identification  of,  149  sqq.;  probably 
deprived,  151. 

Clement,  Dr.,  a  fugitive  Papist,  445. 

Clement's  Inn  free  of  recusants,  543- 

4- 
Clenock,  Maurice,  educated  at  Oxford, 
255  ;  fate  of,  152. 


566 


INDEX 


Clergy,  married,  treatment  of,  under 
Mary  and  Elizabeth,  159;  charged 
with  inconsistency,  137;  defence  of, 
from  charges,  137  sqq.;  number  of, 
in  England  in  1559,  124;  numbers 
of,  in  Mary's  and  Elizabeth's  reigns, 
161 ;  numbers  of,  162;  Marian,  num- 
ber of,  in  1596,  191 ;  number  of,  who 
were  recusants,  greater  than  sup- 
posed, 168;  number  of,  deprived, 
203;  resignations  or  disappearances  of 
number  of,  201,  203;  deprived  by 
Mary,  restoration  of,  196;  Catholic, 
both  say  Mass  and  conduct  reformed 
service,  191 ;  many,  accept  Act  of 
Supremacy,  298 ;  attitude  of,  to  Re- 
formation, 140;  unresponsive  to  Re- 
formation, 140;  real  disposition  of, 
298;  of  London,  list  of,  deprived, 
442  n. ;  numbers  of,  made  up  with 
ignorant  mechanics,  125;  new  Pro- 
testant, ignorant,  194. 

Clerk,  Bp.  John,  institutions  during  his 
episcopate,  198. 

Cliffe,  Geo.,  sequestered  and  later  de- 
prived, 156;  "ousted,"  160. 

Clifford  Moor,  headquarters  of  rebels 
at,  493. 

Cobham,  Lord,  informs  Eliz  that 
French  dispute  her  right  to  Crown, 
5;  supposed  to  be  a  reformer, 
48  n. 

Cock,   John,   urges  severity  on  Cecil, 

5°3; 

Coercion,  question  of,  discussed,  330. 

Coke,  Sir  Ant.,  reports  on  Eton  Col- 
lege, 205;  appointed  Visitor  of 
Camb.,  260. 

Colchester,  Archdeaconry  of,  recusants 
in,  554- 

Colchester,  Mass  said  at  or  near,  466, 

535- 

Cole,  Arthur,  priest,  deprived,  442  n. 

Cole,  Hy.,  Dr.,  educated  at  Oxford, 
255 ;  opens  Westminster  Conference, 
104,  107;  refuses  to  conform,  516; 
Dean  of  St.  Paul's,  deprived,  95, 
212-3-4;  deprived  of  Provostship  of 
Eton   College,    203 ;    takes    up    Bp. 


Jewel's  challenge,  408;  controversy 
with  Jewel,  116. 

Coles,  Humphrey,  lawyer,  helps  Bp. 
Bourne,  373. 

Collier,  dependent  on  Camden,  120; 
explains  duties  of  President  of  West- 
minster Conference,  105 ;  on  number 
of  deprived  clergy,  188;  describes 
interview  between  Queen  Eliz.  and 
Cath.  bishops,  209;  about  Frankfort 
dispute,  225. 

Columban,  Oliver,  restored,  159. 

Comberford,  Hy.,  priest,  in  Hull  pri- 
son, 335 ;  affirms  papal  Supremacy, 
531  ;  recusancy  of,  reported  on, 
549- 

Comberford,  Thos.,  recusant,  to  be 
arrested,  398. 

Commission,  Royal,  of  1559,  issued, 
125. 

Commission  for  Ecclesiastical  Causes 
created,  duties  of,  182;  to  administer 
oath  of  Supremacy,  appointed,  208; 
for  consecration  of  Abp. ,  legal  opinion 
on,  244-5. 

Committee  for  remodelling  religion, 
suggested,  18. 

Commons,   House  of,   Constitution  of, 

53  m-_ 

Communion  under  both  kinds,  intro- 
duced, 31. 

Concertatio,  Bridge  water's,  145. 

Conformists  and  recusants,  percentages 
of,  162. 

Conformity,  how  viewed  in  Tudor  days, 
502;  of  clergy,  Lingard  on,  513; 
hollowness  of  outward,  520-1. 

Consecration  of  Abp.  Parker,  legal 
difficulties  in  way  of,  237  sqq.,  242 
sqq. ;  of  bishops  delayed  to  effect 
exchange  of  bishops'  lands,  241. 

Convocation  declares  for  Roman  Faith 
and  Obedience,  40,  59;  representa- 
tive of  clergy,  58;  draws  up  "Arti- 
cles," 58. 

Cooper,  Thos.,  becomes  Bp.  of  Lin- 
coln, 393;  his  treatment  of  Papists, 
332-3;  suggests  deportation,  333 
on  different  kinds  of  Papists,  521. 


INDEX 


567 


Copage  (or  Cuppage),  John,  absent 
from  visitation,  157. 

Cope,  Alan,  educated  at  Oxford,  255; 
273- 

Copley,  Thos.,  recusant,  468. 

Coppinger,  Hy.,  S.  J.,  of  Gonville, 
269. 

Cornelius,  John  (or  Cornellis),  of  Exe- 
ter Coll.,  Oxon,  martyred,  294. 

Cornwall,  papist  in  character,  371  ; 
recusants  in,  552. 

Cornwall's,  Ric,  priest,  of  Gonville 
College,  269. 

Cornwallis,  Sir  Thos.,  refuses  to  con- 
form, 516. 

Coronation,  description  of,  38  and  n. 

Corpus  Christi  Coll.,  Oxon,  Bp.  Home 
urges  Master  of,  to  resign,  274. 

Corpus  Christi  feast  still  observed, 
504-5. 

Cosyn,  Dr.  Edmund,  resigned  Master- 
ship of  St.  Catherine's,  261 ;  at  Gon- 
ville and  Caius  Coll.,  268. 

Cosen,  Robt.,  289  n. 

Cotesmore,  Thos.,  priest,  427. 

Cotton,  Geo.,  Hants  recusant,  heavily 
fined  for  many  years,  424. 

Cotton,  family,  recusants  in  Hants, 
422. 

Council,  Lords  of,  proclaim  Elizabeth 
Queen,  5 ;  order  Abp.  Parker  to  take 
Bp.  Downham  to  task  for  remiss- 
ness, 320;  require  diocesan  statistics, 
336;  order  monuments  despoiled  and 
damaged  in  churches  to  be  repaired, 
511-2. 

Courtney,  James,  refuses  oath  of  Su- 
premacy, 519. 

Coveney,  Dr.  T. ,  Master  of  Magdalen 
Coll.,  Oxon,  rejected  as  deprived,  by 
Rev.  H.  Gee,  271 ;  Bp.  Home  gives 
reason  for  removal  of,  274. 

Coventry  and  Lichfield  Diocese,  par- 
ticulars and  statistics  of,  394-401 ; 
instructions  for  visitation  of,  396-7; 
"  stubbornest  in  all  this  land,"  401; 
many  recusants  in,  552. 

Coverdale,  Miles,  educated  at  Camb., 
254;    consecrated  by   K.    Edward's 


Ordinal,  246 ;  mandate  to,  to  conse- 
crate Abp.,  241 ;  assists  at  Parker's 
consecration,  248. 

Covert,  family,  recusants,  553. 

Cowpland,  Carlisle  Dioc,  very  "  ignor- 
ant," 313. 

Cox,  Richard,  Bp.,  career  of,  225;  en- 
gaged in  Frankfort  dispute,  225 ; 
educated  at  Cambridge,  253,  255; 
preaches  at  opening  of  Parliament, 
30,  39;  supports  Bill  of  Supremacy 
in  pulpit,  75  n. ;  Abp.  Parker  fears 
selection  of,  for  Canterbury,  234; 
proposed  for  See  of  Norwich,  230 ; 
appointed  to  Norwich,  216,  231 ; 
transferred  to  Ely,  216,  231;  dates 
of  nomination  and  election  to  Ely, 
237;  confirmed  Bishop  of  Ely,  250; 
favours  clerical  matrimony,  387;  re- 
grets that  Protestant  ministers  are 
discredited,  389 ;  desires  extirpation 
of  Papists,  390;  refers  to  preaching 
of  reformers  against  the  Pope,  29; 
refers  to  efforts  of  Catholics  to  obtain 
toleration,  192;  suggests  use  of  tor- 
ture, 331 ;  and  that  Haverd,  a  priest, 
should  be  tortured,  458;  on  attitude 
of  clergy  to  Reformation,  140;  records 
unwillingness  of  priests  to  submit, 
304;  records  that  many  priests  relin- 
quish the  ministry,  176,  3S8 ;  reports 
presence  of  concealed  priests  every- 
where, 192;  who  say  Mass  secretly, 
193;  reports  that  nobility  begin  to 
reform,  505-6;  clergy  unmoved,  506; 
states  there  are  immense  numbers  of 
Papists,  but  concealed,  389;  reports 
that  Papists  practice  their  religion  in 
secret,  390. 

Coxe,  John,  alias  Devon,  indicted  for 
saying  Mass,  331 ;  in  prison  for  say- 
ing Mass,  440,  528. 

Coxians,  225. 

Cranmer,  Thomas  (Abp.),  educated  at 
Cambridge,  253-4;  and  Henry  VIII's 
marriages,  1 ;  consecrated  according 
to  Roman  Pontifical,  248  n. 

Crawforth,  John,  sequestered,  and  later 
deprived,  156. 


568 


INDEX 


Creagh,  Ric,  Abp.  of  Armagh,  in 
prison,  303. 

Creighton,  Dr.  Mandell,  xi,  xii ;  depend- 
ent on  earlier  historians,  120 ;  explains 
English  attitude  towards  Reformation, 
121;  views  of,  on  popularity  of  Re- 
formation and  number  of  deprived 
clergy,  188;  on  religious  leanings  of 
English  people,  298;  recusancy  in 
England,  erroneous  estimate  of,  323. 

Cressye,  Rob.,  conformed,  146. 

Crispin,  Roger,  of  Exeter  Coll.,  Oxon, 
resigns,  294. 

Cumberland,  County  of,  thought  by 
Bp.  Barnes  to  be  "pliable,"  314; 
recusancy  in,  534. 

Cumberland  Deanery,  absentees  in, 
pronounced  contumacious,  157. 

Cumberland,  Earl  of,  maintains  popish 
priests,  311;  wants  Q.  of  Scots  de- 
clared Elizabeth's  successor,  485. 

Curteis,  Edm.,  brother  of  Bishop,  de- 
prived for  serious  crimes,  431. 

Curteis,  Ric,  Bp.  of  Chichester,  finds 
diocese  backward  in  religion,  430; 
opposed  by  recusants,  431;  forced 
to  apologise,  43 1 ;  falsely  accused  of 
drunkenness,  432. 

Curwen  (or  Coren),  Hugh,  Bp.  of 
Oxford,  402. 

Dacre,  Leonard,  480. 

Dacre,  Thomas,  Lord,  maintains  popish 

priests,  311;  480. 
Dakyns,    Edw.,    priest,    of  Gonville, 

269. 
Dale,  John,  priest,  probably  deprived, 

442  n. 
Dalton,  Rob.,  withstood  Visitors,  153; 

deprived,  154;  "ousted,"  160. 
Danby,  Christopher,  noted  as  "evil  of 

religion,"  491. 
Dande,  A.,  deprived,  179. 
Darnley,  Lord,  married  to  Mary  Q.  of 

Scots,  murdered,  477. 
Daryll,    Thos.,    of   New  Coll.,  Oxon, 

278. 
D'Assonleville,    Chr.,    on    Elizabeth's 

religious  leanings,  4. 


Davey,  recusant  family,  in  Oxfordsh., 
404. 

Davis,  Ric,  proposed  for  See  of  Wor- 
cester, 230;  gives  bad  account  of 
suitor  for  Llandaff  diocese,  345-6; 
reports  on  diocese  of  St.  David's  un- 
favourably, 349 ;  dispute  with  Fabian 
Phillips,  351 ;  reports  on  immorality 
prevalent  in  St.  David's,  351. 

Davies,  Thos.  (Bp.),  consecrated  Bp. 
of  St.  Asaph's,  250 ;  furnishes  statistics 
of  diocese  of  St.  Asaph's,  345;  re- 
ports unfavourably  of  St.  Asaph's, 
348. 

Davis,  — ,  of  New  Coll.,  Oxon,  put  in 
prison,  279. 

Davis,  Mr.  H.  C.W.,  History  of  Balliol 
Coll.,  282  sqq. 

Dawkes,  Rob. ,  of  Merton  Coll. ,  Oxon, 
deprived,  286. 

Day,  Geo.,  (Bp.)  educated  at  Camb., 
254. 

Deane,  Win.,  priest,  of  Gonville,  26S. 

De  Antiquitate  Brit.  Ecclesiae,  259. 

Denny,  Mr.,  on  Mandate  for  Abp. 
Parker's  Consecration,  236  n. 

Deprivation,  definition  of,  149-50. 

Deprivations  by  Mary  ignored  under 
Elizabeth,  155;  at  Eton  College, 
204-6. 

Deprived  clergy,  number  of,  203. 

Derby,  Earl  of,  to  help  Bp.  Downham 
in  reforming  dioc  of  Chester,  316 ; 
wants  Q.  of  Scots  declared  Elizabeth's 
successor,  485. 

Derbyshire,  "where  most  of  the  lewd- 
est sort  hath  remained,"  319 ;  reported 
full  of  Papists,  399;  number  of  re- 
cusants in,  552. 

Dering,  Alexander,  has  store  of  Mass 
stuff,  537. 

Dering,  Edw.,  reformer,  educated  at 
Camb.,  255. 

Dethick,  — ,  Aylmer,  promises  a  post 
for  him  with  injustice  to  another,  466. 

"  Device  for  alteration  of  religion," 
16. 

Devonshire,  no  return  of  recusants  in, 
552. 


INDEX 


569 


D'Ewes,  Simon,  on  opposition  of  Bi- 
shops to  Bill  of  Supremacy,  81 ;  mis- 
understands difficulties  over  title 
"Supreme  Head,"  84;  on  number 
of  deprived  clergy,  188. 

Dirrham,  [John],  of  New  Coll.,  Oxon, 
put  in  prison,  279. 

Disorders  in  churches,  22. 

Dispensations  for  pluralities,  grant  of, 
161;  number  of,  granted,  1560-70, 
414. 

Dobeson,  Thos.,  "ousted,"  160. 

Doctors  of  Medicine  mostly  Papists, 
543- 

Dodd,  on  number  of  conforming  clergy, 
512. 

Dolman,  Thos.,  All  Souls  Coll.,  Oxon, 
deprived,  280. 

Dolman  — ,  priest,  caught  saying  Mass, 
462. 

Dominicanesses  restored  under  Mary, 
130;  supported  in  exile  by  K.  Philip, 

135- 

Dominicans  revived  under  Mary,  127; 
details  of  disbanding  of,  133. 

Doncaster,  images  not  destroyed  at, 
165. 

Dorman,  Thos.,  educated  at  Oxford, 
255  ;  of  New  Coll. ,  Oxon,  277 ;  of  All 
Souls  Coll.,  Oxon,  deprived,  280. 

Dormer,  Sir  Wm.,  "hinderer,"  339. 

Dorsetshire,  one  recusant  in,  552. 

Douay  Diary,  list  of  English  parishes, 
337  n. 

Douay,  papist  fugitives  at,  545. 

Douglas,  Lady  Margaret,  favours  the 
Catholics  in  York  Province,  324. 

Douglas,  — ,  a  priest  in  prison,  460, 

Downes,  Galfrid,  sequestered,  145. 

Downes,  family,  recusants,  551. 

Downham,  Bp.  of  Chester,  troubles  of, 
315  sqq.;  scolded  by  Q.  Elizabeth 
for  slackness,  316;  a  second  time 
scolded  by  Q.  Elizabeth  for  remiss- 
ness, 320;  makes  visitation  of  Chester 
Diocese,  317;  reports  favourably  of 
conformity  of  diocese,  317;  punishes 
Papists  by  fine,  318;  deceived  as  to 
conformity  of  Chester  Diocese,  319; 


reports  on  obstinacy  of  recusants, 
321 ;  accused  by  G.  Fyton  of  parti- 
ality, 321 ;  certificate  of  Chester 
Diocese,  338. 

Draycot,  Anthony,  528. 

Drayton,  West,  sequestration  of,  144. 

Drury,  Drew,  conforms  outwardly:  helps 
fugitives,  515. 

Drury,  Ric,  deprived,  152. 

Drury,  Robt.  (preb.),  fate  of,  146. 

Drury,  Sir  Robt.,  "hinderer,"  339. 

Dudley,  Geo.,  probably  deprived,  145-6. 

Dudley,  Lord,  protects  Sebastian  West- 
cote,  442. 

Dugdale,  James,  Master  of  Univ.  Coll. , 
Oxon,  deprived,  280. 

Durham  Cathedral,  visitation  of,  155 
sqq. 

Durham  City  entered  by  rebels,  Mass 
said  in  Cathedral,  493. 

Durham  Diocese,  visitation  of,  1 53-^.; 
number  of  livings  in,  163;  return  of 
state  of,  338;  opposed  to  Reforma- 
tion, 339;  served  by  priests  from 
Scotland,  341;  Popery  in,  304^^.; 
recusancy  in,  534;  popish  in  senti- 
ment, 548. 

Durston,  John,  deprived,  204 «.,  205, 
206. 

Dymock,  Dymoke,  family,  recusants, 
394,  468. 

Dyson,  Proclamations  of  Q.  Eliz.,  78 n. 

Earle,  John,  imprisoned  for  recusancy, 

169. 
Earls,  Northern,  Proclamation  of,  492 ; 

rising  of,  for  religion,  492 ;  flight  of, 

494. 
Eaton,  Reginald,  S.   J.,   of  Gonville, 

269. 
Edgeworth,  Roger,  educated  at  Oxford, 

255- 

Edinburgh  Review,  viii,  xi. 

Education  of  recusants'  children,  554. 

Elis,  — ,  scholar  of  Balliol,  suspect 
Papist,  284. 

Elizabeth,  refused  to  settle  question  of 
Anne  Boleyn's  marriage,  I,  476;  de- 
clared illegitimate ;  placed  in  succes- 


57o 


INDEX 


Elizabeth — continued. 

sion,  476;  title  to  Crown,  Heylin  on, 
in.;  N.  Sander  on,  2;  announces 
her  accession  to  Philip  II,  3;  and  to 
Commissioners  at  Cateau  Cambresis, 
3 ;  religious  leanings  of,  3,11;  Chr. 
d'Assonleville  on,  4;  proclaimed 
Queen  by  Abp.  Heath,  3 ;  proclaimed 
Queen  by  Lords  of  the  Council,  5 ; 
rightof,  toCrown  disputed  by  French, 
5 ;  attitude  of  Paul  IV  towards,  7 ; 
appoints  Sir  W.  Cecil  Secretary,  1 1 ; 
appoints  her  Council,  12  and  n. ;  dis- 
approves of  certain  alterations  in 
Prayer  Book,  19;  objects  to  ceremony 
of  anointing  at  Coronation,  20 ;  issues 
proclamation  against  alterations  in 
Liturgy,  and  preaching,  22 ;  vacilla- 
tion of,  33 ;  proposal  that  she  should 
marry  Philip  II,  34;  bishops  refuse 
to  crown  her,  36 ;  her  first  Parliament, 

42  sqq. ;  first  Parliament,  personnel  of, 

43  sqq.;  influence  of,  in  H.  of  Lords, 
50;  objects  to  marriage  of  clergy,  64; 
upbraids  Bp.  Downham  for  his  slack- 
ness, 316;  scolds  Bp.  Downham  for 
remissness  a  second  time,  320;  re- 
calls powers  of  Commissioners  for 
visitation,  183;  selects  Parker  as 
Abp.  of  Cant.,  234;  gets  Mary  Q.  of 
Scots  into  her  hands,  477;  forbids 
D.  of  Norfolk  to  marry  Q.  of  Scots, 
485-6;  instructs  generals  as  to  deal- 
ings with  rebels,  494;  "meant  to 
have  heads  "  after  Northern  Rising, 
497 ;  shown  to  be  secure  on  throne, 
byresult  of  Rising,  497 ;  scoffs  at  papal 
Bull,  499 ;  allows  Latin  in  Collegiate 
Churches,  513  and  n. ;  possible  mar- 
riage of,  with  a  Catholic,  causes  re- 
laxation of  persecution,  540. 

Ellercar,  Sir  R.,  "a  very  Papist,"  340. 
Ellys,  John,  Dean  of  Hereford,  certifies 

to  Papistry  in  Cathedral  Chapter,  367. 
Ely  Diocese,  visitation  of,  179;  statistics 

°f)  179,  391;  particulars  about,  387- 

392  ;  vacant  cures  in,  388. 
Ely,  Dr.   Humphrey,  records  work  of 

Marian  clergy,  301-2. 


Ely,   Dr.   Wm.,   Head  of  St.  John's, 

Oxon,  a  Papist,  deprived,  289. 
Ely,  — ,  a  priest  harboured  in  Hereford, 

364,  366. 
Englefield,  Sir  F.,  and  pension  lists  of 

exiled  religious,   135;    in  prison  for 

hearing  Mass,  528. 
Erdeswick,    Hugh,    wealthy    recusant, 

400. 
Erdeswick,  Sampson,  recusant,  468. 
Ermyn,  Fras. ,  Papist,  371. 
Essex,  Justices  take  oath  of  Supremacy, 

514;  recusancy  in,  535;  recusants  in, 

554- 

Est,  Wm. ,  a  priest,  deprived,  442  n. 

Estcourt,  Can.,  on  election  of  Abp. 
Parker,  235-6;  on  legal  difficulties 
about  consecration  of  Parker,  2\2sqq. ; 
on  commission  for  consecration  of 
Abp.  Parker,  244  «. ;  argument  of,  on 
Parker's  consecration  mandate  and 
legal  difficulties,  245  sqq. 

Ethell,  David,  "ousted,"  160. 

Etheridge,  Dr.,  reported  on,  446. 

Etheredge,  recusant  family,  in  Oxford- 
shire, 404. 

Eton  College  to  be  purged,  17;  visita- 
tion of,  203  sqq. 

Eton,  Jas.,  Registrar  of  Hereford,  a 
Papist,  370. 

Etwold,  J.,  subscribed,  179. 

Ewers,  Wm.,  Lord,  Visitor  at  Durham, 

155- 

Exeter  Coll. ,  Oxon,  294  sqq. 

Exeter  Diocese  opposed  to  Reforma- 
tion, 339,  343 ;  statistics  of,  370-372. 

Exeter,  Earl  of,  wants  Q.  of  Scots  de- 
clared Elizabeth's  successor,  4S5. 

Exiles,  religious,  return  of,  98;  return 
to  England,  temper  of,  226;  expect- 
ant of  preferment,  227. 

Feazard,  John,  of  Exeter  Coll.,  Oxon, 
resigns,  294. 

Feckenham,Abbot,biographical  account 
ot,  128;  educated  at  Oxford,  255; 
present  in  Parliament,  46;  opposes 
Bill  of  Uniformity,  89  w.;  speech  of, 
against   Bill  of  Uniformity,  91;    ex- 


INDEX 


571 


presses  willingness  to  proceed  with 
Westminster  Conference,  109;  offer 
made  to,  to  remain,  on  conformity, 
131,  213;  deprived,  213;  in  prison, 
303 ;  betrayed  by  a  spy,  531 ;  465. 

Felton,  parish  in  Durham,  vacant,  338. 

Felton,  John,  fixes  papal  Bull  to  Bp.  of 
London's  palace  gates,  49S. 

Felton,  John,  widow  of,  married  to  John 
Strangman,  422. 

Fenne,  James,  John,  Robert,  278. 

Feria  informs  Philip  of  religious  inno- 
vations, 19;  absents  himself  from 
Elizabeth's  Coronation,  20;  informs 
Philip  that  Mass  is  said  in  English, 
31;  on  Mass  in  English,  33;  posi- 
tion of,  at  English  Court,  35;  tells 
Philip  of  work  to  be  done  in  Parlia- 
ment, 39;  on  attitude  of  certain  peers 
towards  reform,  47  «.,  48/2. ;  on  Eliza- 
beth's influence  in  H.  of  Lords,  50; 
reports  to  Philip  on  Bill  for  collation 
to  vacant  bishoprics,  70 ;  tells  Philip 
of  Cecil's  ruse  to  pass  Bill  of  Suprem- 
acy, 74,  75  n. ;  reports  to  Philip  on 
Bill  of  Supremacy,  78;  expostulates 
with  Elizabeth  on  parliamentary 
action  against  the  Church,  82;  sug- 
gests to  Philip  to  inform  Pope  of 
Catholic  protest  against  Bill  of  Su- 
premacy, 82 ;  informs  Philip  of  diffi- 
culties in  Plmt.  over  title  "Supreme 
Head,"  83;  tells  Philip  Elizabeth 
does  not  want  title  "  Supreme  Head," 
85 ;  his  opinion  of  Catholic  bishops, 
85  «. ;  reports  to  Philip  on  debate  on 
Bill  of  Uniformity,  89  ;  influence  of, 
with  Elizabeth,  recognised  by  Jewel, 
99 ;  sends  full  account  of  Westmins- 
ter Conference  to  Philip,  1 1 1 ;  nego- 
ciates  details  of  Westminster  Confer- 
ence, 112;  relates  Protestant  insult 
to  Catholic  religious  feeling  atWestm. 
Conference,  113;  explains  Abbot 
Feckenham's attitude  atWestm.  Con- 
ference, 115;  criticises  result  of 
Westm.  Conference,  1 19 ;  records  dis- 
turbances in  North  on  account  of  re- 
ligion, 175;  also  in  Winchester,  175; 


on  numbers  of  Catholics,  180;  re- 
ports interview  between  Q.  Eliza, 
and  Cath.  bishops,  209;  obtained 
permission  to  deport  religious,  132, 
213;  departure  of,  from  England, 
94. 

Fettiplace,  family,  recusants,  552. 

Field,  Lawrence,  priest,  deprived, 
442  n. 

Field  [John],  Puritan  minister,  466. 

Fines  for  hearing  Mass  cause  people  to 
conform  outwardly,  512. 

Fingley,  John,  priest,  of  Gonville, 
268. 

First  Fruits  and  Tenths,  Bill  for  Re- 
storation of,  56;  Bill  for  Restoration 
of,  introduced  in  H.  of  Lords,  59  sqq. 

Fisher,  Bl.  John,  Cardinal,  educated 
at  Cambridge,  254 ;  Bp.  of  Rochester, 
432- 

Fishlake,  recusancy  of  laity  at,  164. 

Fitzherbert,  Ric,  wealthy  recusant, 
400. 

Fitzherbert,  Sir  Thos.,  refused  to  con- 
form, 518. 

Fitzsimons,  Ric,  a  joiner,  really  a 
priest,  370. 

Fitzsymons,  Leonard,  of  Trin.  Coll., 
Oxon,  recusant,  288. 

Flack,  Win.,  S.J.,  of  Gonville,  269. 

Fleetwood,  Wm.,  Recorder  of  London, 
sent  to  Fleet  for  raiding  ambassador's 
house,  462. 

Fogaca,  Antonio,  reports  Masses  said 
in  London,  467. 

Forde,  Thos.,  of  Trin.  Coll.  Oxon,  re- 
cusant and  martyr,  288. 

Fortescue,  Adrian,  452. 

Foster,  Mr.,  of  All  Souls  Coll.,  Oxon, 
contumacious,  281. 

Foster,  Wm.,  priest,  427. 

Fowler,  Bryan,  recusant,  supports  Bp. 
Poole,  395,  396. 

Fowler,  John,  of  New  Coll.,  Oxon, 
278. 

P'owler,  John,  printer  of  fugitives'  books 
at  Antwerp,  545. 

Fowler,  Rev.  T.,  on  causes  of  Dr. 
Chedsey's  resignation,  275. 


572 


INDEX 


Fox,  — ,  of  New  Coll.,  Oxon,  put  in 
prison,  279. 

Foxe,  John,  the  Martyrologist,  edu- 
cated at  Oxford,  255 ;  endeavours  to 
make  distinction  between  bishops  and 
Feckenham,  116. 

France,  negociation  of  terms  of  peace 
with,  33.^. 

Franciscans  revived  under  Mary,  125; 
suppressed,  (1559),  125;  date  of  de- 
parture of,  133. 

Frankfort,  dispute,  224 sqq. 

Franklin,  Rob.,  of  All  Souls  Coll., 
Oxon,  recusant,  281. 

Freake,  Edmund,  Bp.  of  Norwich, 
381-384;  ruled  by  his  wife,  382;  has 
papist  servants,  383;  active  against 
recusants,  382 ;  makes  list  of  recus- 
ants in  Norwich  diocese,  551 ;  burns 
men  for  heresy,  333 ;  succeeded  Ghest 
at  Rochester,  433. 

Frere,  Rev.  W.  H.,  on  absence  of  Sir 
Th.  Tresham  from  Parliament,  45  n. ; 
on  Bill  of  Uniformity,  91  n.;  on 
number  of  deprived  clergy,  121, 
188. 

Froude,  Mr.  J.  A.,  vii,  viii,  ix,  x;  de- 
pendent on  earlier  historians,  120; 
on  creation  of  new  peers  by  Eliza- 
beth, 48  n. ;  on  constitution  of  House 
of  Commons,  53;  expresses  underlying 
motive  of  Westminster  Conference, 
100;  on  significance  of  Parker's  con- 
secration, 249. 

Fugitives,  526;  Bp.  Cooper  on,  544; 
legislation  against,  544,  545. 

Fuller,  dependent  on  Camden,  120 ;  on 
number  of  deprived  clergy,  124, 
188. 

Fyton,  G.,  accuses  Bp.  Downham  of 
partiality  in  treatment  of  recusants, 
321. 

Gage,   of  Firle,    family,   recusants   in 

Surrey,  427,  553. 
Gairdner,  Mr.  James,  on  Home's  tender 

of  oath  to  Bp.  Bonner,  539. 
Gang-week  still  held,  438. 
Gardiner,  Mr.,  suspected  Papist,  265. 


Gardiner,  Stephen  (Bp.),  educated  at 
Cambridge,  254. 

Gargrave,  Sir  Thos.,  eccl.  Visitor,  de- 
tails of  work  of,  143  sqq. ;  recommends 
Ric.  Barnes  for  bishopric  of  Carlisle, 
313;  reports  on  Papists  in  York- 
shire, 327;  reports  executions  after 
Rising,  497 ;  searches  houses  for  Mass 
saying,  530;  makes  list  of  Papists  in 
Yorkshire,  535. 

Garnet,  [Richard],  of  Balliol  Coll., 
Oxon,  deprived,  283. 

Gascoigne,  Edw.,  made  Head  of  Jesus 
Coll.,  Camb.,  263. 

Gasquet,  Abbot,  vii,  xii,  xiii;  quoted, 
424  «. 

Gatacre,  Fras.,  wealthy  recusant,  400. 

Gatacre,  John,  of  New  Coll.,  Oxon, 
278. 

Gates,  Sir  Hy.,  eccl.  Visitor,  work  of, 
143  W> 

Gauthier,  M.  Jules,  ix. 

Gawen,  family,  recusants,  468. 

Gee,  Rev.  H.,  xii;  on  visitation  of  York 
Diocese,  149;  on  visitation  of  Nor- 
wich, 179;  mistakes  of,  in  Ely  Dio- 
cese, 179;  enquiry  of,  into  changes 
of  incumbency,  196  and  n.;  on  time 
limit  of  deprivations  for  recusancy, 
202;  on  number  of  deprivations  at 
Universities,  263  n. ;  selects  too  short 
limit  for  investigations,  272;  on  de- 
privation of  Phil.  Baker,  265;  on 
number  of  deprived  clergy,  121; 
omits  names  of  deprived,  belonging 
to  Univ.  Coll.,  Oxon,  280;  omissions 
of  deprivations,  264;  289 «.;  301 ; 
his  estimate  of  Oxford  conformity, 
271. 

Gervaise,  Dr.,  Master  of  Merton,  sym- 
pathiser with  Popery,  2S6. 

Ghest,  Edmund  (Bp.),  educated  at 
Cambridge,  255;  to  help  in  re- 
modelling service  books,  18;  peti- 
tions for  preferment,  228,  23S ;  pro- 
posed for  See  of  St.  Asaph's,  230; 
designated  to  St.  Asaph's,  238; 
made  Bp.  of  Rochester,  433;  conse- 
crated Bp.   of  Rochester,  250;   not 


INDEX 


573 


unfriendly  to  Papists,  433 ;  trans- 
lated to  Salisbury,  411. 

Gibbon,  John,  of  Lincoln  Coll.,  Oxon, 
recusant,  285. 

Giblett,  of  New  Coll.,  Oxon,  put  in 
prison,  279. 

Giffard,  Wm.,  O.S.B.,  Abp.  of  Rheims, 
of  Lincoln  Coll.,  Oxon,  recusant, 
285 ;  pupil  of  Dr.  Etheridge,  446. 

Gill,  Mr.  W.  A.,  on  deprivation  of 
Ric.  Carr,  263. 

Giraldi ,  Fras. ,  Portuguese  Ambassador, 
raid  on  house  of,  to  find  priests  and 
Papists,  460-1. 

Glastonbury,  contemplated  restoration 
of,  under  Mary,  128. 

Gloucester  Diocese,  reports  on,  372; 
recusancy  in,  550. 

Gloucester  Hall,  Oxon,  291  sqq. ;  how 
its  students  escaped  persecution,  293. 

Goddeshalfe,  Edw.,  prebendary  of  Chi- 
chester, 424-5. 

Goldwell,  Stephen,  218. 

Goldwell,  Thos.  (Bp.),  educated  at  Ox- 
ford, 255;  without  proxy  in  Parlia- 
ment, 49;  absent  from  Parliament, 
44;  escapes  to  Continent,  217,  218. 

Gonville  and  Caius  Coll.,  Camb., 
Popery  in,  266  sqq. 

Good,  Dr.,  a  recusant,  ill  in   prison, 

445- 

Gooday,  Rob.,  priest,  probably  de- 
prived, 442  n. 

Goodman,  — ,  in  prison  for  hearing 
Mass,  528. 

Goodman,  Gabriel,  educated  at  Cam- 
bridge, 255  ;  has  conference  with  re- 
cusants, 516. 

Goodrich,  Ric,  proposes  scheme  of  re- 
form, 14;  plan  of,  to  imprison  Marian 
bishops,  230-1;  Visitor  of  Oxford 
Univ.,  272. 

Government  responsible  for  burning 
of  roods,  etc.,  173. 

Gray,  Mr.  A.,  on  deprivation  of  Th. 
Redman,  263. 

Gray's  Inn,  recusants  in,  468;  con- 
tained many  recusants,  544. 

Graye,  — ,  a  priest,  427. 


Graye,  Rob.  de,  recusant,  382. 
Graye,  Wm.,  "  ousted,"  160. 
Greenwood,    recusant   family,    in    Ox- 
fordshire, 404. 
Gregory,  a  priest,  harboured  in  Here- 
ford, 364,  366. 
Grene,  John,  conformed,  152. 
Griffith,  Hugh,  priest,  deprived,  442  n. 
Grindal,   Edmund  (Bp.),   educated   at 
Camb.,  255;  made  Bp.  of  London, 
account  of,  435  ;  proposed  for  See  of 
London,  230;  designated  for  London, 
231;    appointed  to  See  of  London, 
214;  commission  to,  as  "nominated 
Bp.  of  Lond. ,"  235 ;  date  of  nomina- 
tion  to  London,   237;    consecrated, 
250,  437;    says  "Bp.  of  London  is 
always  to  be  pitied,"  437 ;  describes 
course  of  Reformation,  436;  becomes 
Abp.  of  York,  326,  459 ;  reports  on 
popish    practices    in    York    diocese, 
326 ;  under  sentence  of  sequestration, 
310;  on  attitude  of  clergy  to  Reforma- 
tion,   140;    complains  of   Eton  Col- 
lege, 204;   reports   on   constancy  of 
Catholic    bishops    against    oath     of 
Supremacy,    208;    records    depriva- 
tions   of    bishops   proceeding,    217; 
visits   King's   Coll.,    Camb.,  265-6; 
urges   strong  measures  with  Corpus 
Christi  Coll.,  Oxon,  276  ;  reports  on 
backwardness    of    Carlisle   Diocese, 
313;  reports  to  Bullinger  on  repres- 
sive   measures    against     Papists     in 
York,  327;    articles  by,  to  root  out 
Catholic     practices     in     Yorkshire, 
328  n. ;     deprecates     leniency     with 
Papists,  330;    likened  to  a  Spanish 
Inquisitor,   330 ;    urges  visitation  of 
Hereford  Cathedral,  365;  makes  re- 
port on  Popery  in  Oxford  Diocese, 
404;  his  opinion  on  the  Mass,  438; 
abolishes  Rogation  processions,  438 ; 
deplores  dearth  of  godly  ministers, 
holds   many   and   large   ordinations, 
439,  506;  makes  visitation  of  London 
Diocese,    440;    anxious   to   increase 
penalties  against  Papists,  440;  finds 
Justices  of  London  Diocese  satisfac- 


574 


INDEX 


Grindal,  Edmund  (Bp.) — continued. 
tory,  444;  concerned  about  Popery 
in  Inns  of  Court,  447 ;  raids  ambas- 
sador's house  for  Mass-hearers,  455  ; 
busies  himself  about  "Mass  matters," 
456;  suggests  torture  for  Haverd,  a 
priest,  458 ;  suggests  use  of  rack,  331 ; 
makes  domiciliary  searches  to  find 
Papists  and  priests,  458;  suggestions 
for  extirpating  Popery  in  Inns  of 
Court,  468;  makes  return  of  Kent 
Justices,  473;  preaches  at  Paul's  Cross 
on  restoration  of  K.  Edward's  Prayer 
Book,  503 ;  reports  on  obstinacy  of  Sir 
Thos.  Fitzherbert,  518;  reports  laxity 
in  observance  of  fast  and  abstinence, 
523;  refers  to  prisoners  for  "Mass 
matters,"  528;  ordered  to  search 
houses  for  Mass-saying,  530;  reports 
on  activity  of  Papists  in  the  North, 
535 ;  urges  that  oath  be  tendered  to 
Bp.  Bonner,  538;  urges  on  Queen 
need  for  increased  severity,  330,  331, 
541 ;  says  Act  enforcing  Thirty-nine 
Articles  was  made  to  discover  popish 
priests,  542. 

Guarras,  Antonio,  Portuguese  Ambas- 
sador, protests  at  raiding  of  his  house, 
462-3 ;  house  of,  pillaged,  484 ;  reports 
posting  of  papal  Bull  in  London, 
498. 

Guildford,  Lady,  house  of,  raided  to 
find  priests  and  Papists,  462,  532. 

Gunter,  Arthur,  recusant  in  Sussex, 
427. 

Haddon,  Walter,  appointed  Visitor  of 

Cambridge,  260. 
Hales,  John,  reports  on  Popery  in  Inns 

of  Court,  446-7. 
Hall,  Ric,  of  Gonville,  268. 
Hallam,  dependent  on  earlier  historians, 

120;  on  number  of  deprived  clergy, 

122;  could  never  have  seen  original 

documents,  122. 
Hamerson,  — ,  a  priest,  harboured  in 

Hereford,  366. 
Hamilton,   Mr.  A.  C,  on  deprivations 

at  Univ.  Coll.,  Oxon,  280. 


Hampshire,  recusancy  in,  in  1583,  175; 
recusants  in,  418-9;  list  of  recusants 
in,  420;  large  number  of  Papists  in, 
recorded  by  Strype,  423;  Papists  in, 
537 ;  recusants  in,  553. 

Handlebie,  — ,  priest  in  Lincolnshire, 
532. 

Hanson,  John,  "ousted,"  160. 

Harding,  Thos.,  educated  at  Oxford, 
255;  of  New  Coll.,  Oxon,  277; 
attacks  Bp.  Jewel,  408;  Confutation 
of  the  Apology,  409;  Answer  to  the 
Apology,  409. 

Hardy,  John,  of  New  Coll.,  Oxon, 
278. 

Hare,  Michael,  recusant,  468. 

Hare,  family,  recusants,  553. 

Hareley,  John,  of  Brompton,  Esq.,  a 
Papist,  370;  a  recusant,  550. 

Harford  {or  Harvard)  Ric,  opposed  to 
Bp.  Scory,  363. 

Hargrave,  Fr.  Rich.,  Prior  of  Domini- 
cans, 127;  describes  disbanding  of 
Dominicans,  133. 

Harleston,  Ric. ,  reports  on  recusancy  in 
Lancashire,  533. 

Harpsfield,  John,  educated  at  Oxford, 
255;  of  New  Coll.,  Oxon,  277;  at 
visitation  of  London  Diocese,  169; 
refused  to  subscribe,  171;  deprived, 
171;  refuses  to  conform,  516. 

Harpsfield,  Nicholas,  educated  at  Ox- 
ford, 255;  of  New  Coll.,  Oxon,  277; 
at  visitation  of  London  Diocese,  169; 
refused  to  subscribe,  171;  deprived, 
171. 

Harris,  William,  of  Lincoln  Coll., 
Oxon,  recusant,  285. 

Harrison,  Robt.,  though  Papist,  elected 
Presid.  of  Corp.  Christi  Coll.,  Oxon, 

275- 
Hart,  Ric,  refused  to  subscribe,  158. 
Harte,  Walter,  of  Lincoln  Coll.,  Oxon, 

recusant,  285. 
Harvard,  Thos.,  J.  P.,  a  Papist,  366. 
Harvey,  Dr.  Hy.,  Head  of  Trinity  Hall, 

Camb.,  263;  eccl.  Visitor,  work  of, 

143  sqq. ;  conformed,  146. 
Harvey,  Thos.,  priest,  deprived,  442  n. 


INDEX 


575 


Hastings  of  Loughborough,  Lord, 
makes  submission:  had  been  im- 
prisoned for  hearing  Mass,  516. 

Havard,  Haverd,  Howard,  — ,  a  priest 
harboured  in  Hereford,  364; 
(Howard),  366;  a  priest,  suggested 
by  Bp.  Cox  that  he  might  be  put  to 
torment,  331,  458. 

Hawford,  Edw.,  made  Head  of  Christ's 
Coll.,  Camb.,  262;  character  of, 
262. 

Hawle,  Wm.,  expelled  from  Merton, 
received  at  Univ.  Coll. ,  280 ;  restores 
popish  hymns,  287;  summoned  before 
Abp.  Parker,  deprived,  286,  287. 

Haywood,  Jasper,  of  All  Souls  Coll., 
Oxon,  deprived,  280;  an  S.  J.,  468. 

Headingley,  sequestration  of,  144. 

Heath,  Nicholas  (Abp.),  educated  at 
Oxford,  255;  proclaims  Elizabeth 
Queen,  3,  230,  476;  resigns  Chan- 
cellorship, 14;  present  in  Parliament, 
46 ;  speech  against  Bill  of  Supremacy, 
80;  arranges  details  of  Westminster 
Conference,  102;  Feria's  opinion  of, 
85  n. ;  dismisses  his  servants,  209 ; 
abandons  great  revenue,  213;  oath 
tendered  to,  refused,  217;  deprived, 
217;  Mass  at  house  of,  at  Chobham, 
531;  returned  as  a  recusant,  422,  552. 

Hebden,  John,  conformed,  152. 

Hedd,  Peter,  conformed,  152. 

Heighington,  — ,  noted  as  "evil  of 
religion,"  491. 

Helme,  Thos.,  "ousted,"  160. 

Hennessey,  Rev.  Geo. ,  edition  of  New  - 
court's  Repertorium,  442  and  notes. 

Henry  VII,  marriage  of,  475. 

Henry  VIII,  creationof  new  dioceses  by, 
355;  Act  25,  c.  20,  about  consecra- 
tions of  abps.,  242  sqq. ;  family  of, 
475- 

Henshaw,  Hy.,  Rector  of  Lincoln  Coll., 
Oxon,  deprived,  284. 

Henslow,  Mr.,  of  New  Coll.,  Oxon, 
deprived  for  Popery,  279. 

Herde,  John,  conformed,  152. 

Hereford  Cath.  Chapter,  complaints  of 
independence  of,  367. 


Hereford  City,  priests  harboured  in, 
364,  366. 

Hereford  Diocese  opposed  to  Reforma- 
tion, 339,  343;  Popery  in,  362-70; 
recusancy  in,  550;  disorders  in,  re- 
counted by  Bp.  Scory,  363;  old 
fasts  and  feasts  kept,  364;  books  of 
Harding  and  Dorman,  common  in, 
368. 

Herle,  Wm.,  spy,  reports  on  Dr. 
Etheridge,  446;  gives  information 
about  Papists  hearing  Mass,  460. 

Hertford  Coll.,  Oxon,  refuge  for  re- 
cusants, 288. 

Hertfordshire,  recusants  in,  554. 

Hertfordshire,  Clutterbuck's,  gaps  in 
institutions  to  livings  in,  199. 

Heskyns,  Thos.,  deprivation  of,  264. 

Hewetson,  Anthony,  priest,  probably 
deprived,  443  n. 

Heylin,  Peter,  on  Elizabeth's  title  to 
Crown,  1  n. ;  dependent  on  Camden, 
120;  on  policy  underlying  Bill  of  Uni- 
formity, S"] ;  on  Frankfort  dispute, 
225 ;  on  temper  of  returned  religious 
exiles,  226;  on  ignorance  of  Pro- 
testant ministers,  440  n. ;  account  by, 
of  troubles  at  Merton  Coll.,  Oxon, 
286-8. 

Heywood,  Oliver,  caught  saying  Mass, 
462. 

Hicket,  Nich.,  a  priest,  427. 

History,  function  of,  vii-viii. 

Hodgkyns,  John,  mandate  to,  to  conse- 
crate Abp.,  241;  Christian  name  of, 
244  n. ;  consecrated  according  to 
Roman  Pontifical,  248;  assists  at 
Parker's  consecration,  248. 

Holland,  Seth,  educated  at  Oxford,  255; 
recusant,  his  place  sought,  228,  238. 

Holt,  Fr.  Wm.,  on  number  of  Marian 
clergy  at  end  of  century,  301. 

Holtby,  Ric,  S.J.,  of  Gonville,  269. 

Hooper,  John  (Bp.),  not  of  Cambridge, 
but  of  Oxford,  253-4. 

Hopkins,  Ric,  conformed,  146. 

Hopkins,  Stephen,  a  priest,  427. 

Home,  Adam,  nephew  of  Bp.  Home 
reconciled  to  Rome,  421. 


576 


INDEX 


Home,  Rob.,  Bp.  of  Winchester,  ac- 
count of,  412;  opens  Protestant  de- 
bate at  Westminster  Conference,  107 ; 
insults  Catholic  religious  feeling  at 
Westminster  Conference,  113;  de- 
prived of  Deanery  of  Durham  in 
Mary's  reign,  155;  reinstated,  156; 
educated  at  Cambridge,  255;  pro- 
posed for  See  of  Winchester,  230;  one 
of  theVisitors  of  London  Diocese,  169; 
reports  on  Eton  College,  205;  ap- 
pointed Visitor  of  Cambridge,  260; 
gives  reason  for  removal  of  Dr.  Cove- 
ney,  274;  visits  New  Coll.,  Corpus, 
and  Trinity,  274;  gives  details  of 
visitation  of  New  Coll.,  Oxon,  276 
sqq.;  bewails  dearth  of  clergy,  305; 
reports  rejection  of  popish  cere- 
monies by  Ch.  of  England,  412  n.; 
asks  for  extended  powers  to  punish 
Papists,  332;  complains  of  want  of 
power  to  make  preferments,  417; 
thinks  lower  orders  will  follow  gentry 
if  latter  are  forced  to  submission, 
527/2.;  makes  visitation  of  Winton 
Dioc,  finds  it  full  of  Popery,  413; 
reports  backwardness  of  Winton  Dioc. 
in  Reformation,  415-6;  on  recusancy 
in  Winchester  Dioc,  304,  536;  makes 
a  return  of  recusants  in  Hants,  553. 

House  of  Lords,  voting  strength  of  op- 
posing parties  in,  80. 

Howland,  Ric,  reports  in  1577  that 
none  refuse  to  attend  church  in  Cam- 
bridge, 270. 

Huddlestone,  Thos.,  "ousted"  (con- 
senting), 160. 

Huddlestone,  family,  recusants,  551. 

Hudson,  John,  "ousted,"  160. 

Hughes,  Mr.  [Wm.],  "  sueth  for  Llan- 
daff,"  bad  opinion  of  his  merits,  346; 
can  find  no  recusants  in  diocese  in 
1573,  348. 

Hume,  David,  proves  that  Elizabeth's 
first  Parlmt.  was  packed,  55. 

Hume,  Major  M.  A.,  113  n.,  176  n. 

Humphrey,  Lawrence,  educated  at 
Oxford,  255 ;  seeks  preferment, 
229. 


Hunnyngton,  John,  of  New  Coll. ,  Oxon, 
278. 

Hunting  of  the  Romish  Fox,  209. 

Huntingdon,  Earl  of,  reports  on  re- 
cusancy in  North,  334,  335 ;  views  of, 
on  qualifications  of  Elizabethan 
bishops,  334. 

Hussey,  Thos.,  noted  as  "evil  of  re- 
ligion," 491. 

Hutton,  Mr.  W.  H.,  Hist,  of  St.  John's 
Coll.,  Oxon,  attack  of,  on  Dr.  Belsire, 
289  n. ;  mistakes  of,  corrected,  290  n. ; 
on  Geo.  Russell,  291  n. 

Huyck,  Master,  Visitor  of  London  Dio- 
cese, 169. 

Hyde,  David  de  la,  of  Merton  Coll., 
Oxon,  deprived,  286. 

Hyde,  Thos.,  of  New  Coll.,  Oxon,  and 
Winchester  School,  277. 

Hyde,  Wm.,  recusant,  410. 

II  Schifanoya.    See  Schifanoya,  II. 

Incumbents,  index  of,  needed,  195;  re- 
cords of,  very  incomplete,  196; 
attempted  statistics  of  changes  of, 
197  sqq.;  three,  not  priests,  in  Llan- 
daff  Diocese,  344. 

Index  of  incumbents  needed,  195. 

Injunction,  Queen's,  for  changes  in 
Liturgy,  16. 

Injunctions  of  Elizabeth  compared  with 
those  of  Edw.  VI,  142. 

Inns  of  Court,  Popery  in,  447-8;  mem- 
bers of,  hear  Mass,  448;  recusancy 
in,  554- 

Institutions  to  benefices  in  diocese  of 
Bath  and  Wells,  198;  of  incumbents, 
gaps  in  lists  of,  199. 

Instructions  for  visitation  of  Cov.  and 
Lichf.  Dioc,  396-7. 

Jack-of  rapes  Charity,  309. 

Jacob,  Giles,  Law  Dictioitary  quoted, 

150. 
Jakeson,  John,  "ousted,"  160. 
James  V  of  Scotland  marries  Mary  of 

Guise,  475. 
Jeffrison,  Thos.,  sequestered,  153. 


INDEX 


577 


Jenks,  Roland,  recusant,  of  Oxfordshire, 
404. 

Jennynges,  Alex.,  fate  of,  148. 

Jerningham,  family,  recusants,  551. 

Jesus  Coll.,  Camb.,  signs  of  Popery  in, 
263. 

Jewel,  John,  Bp.  of  Sarum,  account  of, 
404;  complains  that  exiles  get  no 
promotion,  405 ;  educated  at  Oxford, 
254;  on  situation  after  Elizabeth's 
accession,  13,  99;  on  Proclamation 
against  preaching,  23 ;  on  attitude  of 
clergy  to  Reformation,  140;  their  un- 
willingness to  submit,  304;  fears  for 
success  of  Reformation,  174;  reports 
on  obstinacy  of  clergy  against  Re- 
formation, 177,  506;  testifies  to  hold 
of  the  Mass  on  priests  and  people, 
I78,  505;  reports  priests  in  hiding, 
192;  announces  Bp.  White's  death, 
223  ».;  on  candidates  for  Sees,  231; 
sets  out  to  visit  western  dioceses, 
177,  406;  explains  Anglican  omission 
of  Papal  ceremonies  in  consecration 
of  Bishops,  247,  407;  looks  for  pro- 
motion, 99;  laments  want  of  prefer- 
ment, 227 ;  proposed  for  See  of  Lin- 
coln, 230;  designated  for  Salisbury, 
231;  conge  ctelire  to  Salisbury,  237; 
elected,  237 ;  consecrated  Bp.  of 
Salisbury,  250;  deplores  inactivity  in 
Universities,  256;  accuses  Oxford  of 
"ignorance  and  obstinacy,"  257; 
says  there  are  few  reformers  there, 
257 ;  reports  on  Popery  in  Sarum 
Diocese  and  in  Oxford,  409;  com- 
plains of  "dismal  solitude  "  in  Uni- 
versities, 257;  says  religion  is  back- 
ward in  Oxford,  257 ;  says  Univer- 
sities are  deserted,  258,  506-7 ;  says 
Universities  are  "without  religion," 
258 ;  hopes  Peter  Martyr  may  return 
to  Oxford,  258;  reports  slight  pro- 
gress of  Reformation  and  gives 
reason  for  it,  508;  exults  over  fines 
inflicted  for  hearing  Mass,  509;  on 
abolition  of  the  Mass,  26;  on  diffi- 
culties over  title,  "Supreme  Head," 
84;   on  debate  in  H.  of  Lords  on 


Bill  of  Uniformity,  89;  describes 
Westminster  Conference,  100;  re- 
ports imprisonment  of  bishops,  1 1 1  n. ; 
blames  Catholics  for  break-up  of 
Westm.  Conference,  116;  records 
progress  of  Reformation,  405-7; 
preaches  against  transubstantiation, 
408;  his  famous  challenge,  408; 
taken  up  by  Henry  Cole,  408 ;  con- 
troversy with  Dr.  Cole,  116;  his 
Apology  for  the  Ch.  of  Engl,  408; 
Reply  to  Harding's  Answer,  409; 
Defence  of  the  Apology,  409. 

Jolly,  — ,  priest,  in  prison  for  saying 
Mass,  528. 

Jones,  David,  spy,  informs  about  Mass 
saying,  531. 

Jones,  Hugh,  Bp.  of  Llandaff,  reports 
favourably  of  diocese,  351;  reports 
people  "out  of  charity,"  and  so 
unable  to  communicate,  351. 

Jones,  John,  O.S.B.,  of  St.  John's 
Coll.,  Oxford,  291. 

Jones,  Robt.,  priest,  deprived,  442  n. 

Jonson,  a  priest  harboured  in  Hereford, 
366. 

Joyner,  Ric,  charged  with  concealing 
Church  stuff,  275. 

Justices  of  Peace,  oath  tendered  to, 
214;  oath  of  Supremacy  required  of, 
5iS. 

Kelk,   Roger,   seeks    preferment,  228; 

becomes  head  of  Magdalene  Coll., 

Camb.,  263. 
Kellaway,  Mr.,  to  look  to  exchange  of 

bishops'  lands,  239. 
Kellet,  John,  priest,  probably  deprived, 

443  »• 

Kendal,  visitation  at,  157. 

Kent,  recusants  in,  553. 

Kiddall,  Goddard,  deprivation  of,  145. 

King,  Rob. ,  first  Bp.  of  Oxford,  402. 

King,  Wm.,  seeks  refuge  at  Gonville 

Coll.,  268. 
Kirkhaile,  parish   in  Durham,  vacant, 

338. 
Kirklinton  parish,  popish,  315. 
Kirton,  Thos.,  deprived,  204,  205. 


PP 


573 


INDEX 


Kitchin,  Anthony  (Bp.),  educated  at 
Oxford,  255 ;  present  in  Parliament, 
46;  retains  his  See,  214;  conforms, 
220;  receives  mandate  to  consecrate 
Parker  Abp.,  219,  236;  second  man- 
date to,  for  consecration  of  Abp.,  241; 
not  legally  sufficient  for  consecration 
of  Abp.,  243;  not  present  at  Parker's 
consecration,  248 ;  required  to  report 
on  diocese  of  Llandaff,  343. 

Knott,  Wm.,  of  New  Coll.,  Oxon, 
278. 

Knox,  John,  and  Frankfort  disputes, 
224  sqq. 

Knox,  Father,  T.  F.,  denies  interview 
between  Q.  Eliz.  and  Cath.  bishops, 
209;  on  work  of  Marian  priests, 
301. 

Knoxians,  225. 


Lacey,  Mr.,  on  Mandate  for  Abp. 
Parker's  consecration,  236  ft. 

Lacunae  in  Episcopal  registers  of  In- 
stitutions, examples  of,  200. 

Lamb,  Geo.,  deprived,  146. 

Lancashire,  priests  driven  from  Durham 
into,  309 ;  badly  reported  on  by  Bp. 
Barnes,  314;  "where  most  of  the 
lewdest  sort  hath  remained,"  319; 
"mightily  infected  with  Popery," 
319;  recusants  in,  323 ;  recusancy  in, 

532-3,  533  «•.  534,  549- 

Langdale,  Alban,  absent  from  visita- 
tion, deprived,  149. 

Langdon,  Thos.,  "a  monk  of  West- 
minster "  in  prison  for  saying  Mass, 
528. 

Langridge,  Peter,  imprisoned  for  recu- 
sancy, 169. 

Lardge,  Thos.,  conforms,  515. 

Lathom,  John,  priest,  400. 

Latimer,  Hugh  (Bp.),  educated  at 
Camb.,  254. 

Latin  services  allowed  at  Camb.,  269; 
allowed  by  Elizabeth  in  collegiate 
churches,  513  and  n. 

Lawson,  Hy.,  at  Gloucester  Hall,  Oxon, 
292. 


Lawson,    Robt.,    refuses   oath   of    Su- 
premacy, 305. 
Lawyers,  mostly  Papists,  543. 
Laymen,  effect  severance  from  Rome, 

43- 

Leades,  Geo. ,  priest,  deprived,  442  n. 

Ledbery,  a  priest  harboured  in  Here- 
ford, 366. 
:    Lee,  Sir  Henry,  to  be  allowed  to  visit 
sick  doctors  in  the  Tower,  446. 

Leedes,  Thos.,  recusant,  lands  of, 
granted  to  Sir  Thos.  West,  545. 

Legge,  Dr.,  Head  of  Gonville  Coll., 
results  of  his  Mastership,  268. 

Legge,  Reginald,  deprived,  204,  205. 

Leicester,  Earl  of,  declares  willingness 
that  Q.  of  Scots  should  be  declared 
Elizabeth's  successor,  485. 

Leicestershire,  but  few  recusants  in,  552. 

Leigh,  Mr.,  on  deprivation  of  Phil. 
Baker,  265. 

Lent,  inobservance  of,  by  Reformers; 
legislation  to  secure  observance  of, 
524-5- 

Leo  XIII  and  Anglican  Orders,  246. 

Lever,  Thomas,  on  worship  by  re- 
formers in  Mary's  reign,  27 ;  without 
promotion,  230. 

Lewis,  Owen,  of  New  Coll.,  Oxon, 
later  Bp.  of  Cassano,  278. 

Lincoln's  Inn,  recusants  in,  468;  con- 
tained many  recusants,  544. 

Lincoln  College,  Oxford,  284. 

Lincoln  Diocese,  particulars  about, 
392-4;  seems  to  have  conformed 
easily  and  quickly,  394 ;  but  few  re- 
cusants in,  552. 

Lincolnshire,  Mass  said  in,  532. 

Lingard,  Dr.  John,  on  Pope's  attitude 
towards  Elizabeth,  10  «. ;  on  selec- 
tion of  Elizabeth's  Council,  12;  on 
attitude  of  bishops  towards  Corona- 
tion, 37;  on  elections  to  Parliament, 
54;  gives  reason  for  Westminster 
Conference,  100;  on  number  of  de- 
prived clergy,  122;  on  conformity  of 
clergy,  513. 

Lingard,  Oliver,  priest,  deprived, 
442  «. 


INDEX 


579 


Linney,  Roger,  vicar  of  Blackburn,  re- 
signed for  pension,  307. 

Litany,  English,  introduction  of,  27. 

Livings,  number  of,  in  England,  189- 
90,  414;  unserved,  number  of,  162; 
returns  of  vacant,  1 S7.  • 

Llandaff  Dioc,  statistics  about,  344; 
in  need  of  able  bishop,  346;  Popery 
and  Papists  in,   352;    recusancy  in, 

55°- 

London,  City  of,  stronghold  of  Pro- 
testantism, 169;  leader  in  reform, 
434;  chief  centre  of  Reformation, 
509;  number  of  recusants  in,  467; 
catalogue  of  Papists  in,  470;  Cath- 
olics in  prisons  of,  471. 

London  Diocese,  clergy  of,  many  recu- 
sants, 169;  visitation  of,  1 6gsgq. ;  many 
churches  in,  destitute  of  pastors,  170; 
places  in,  where  Visitors  held  sittings 
for  visitation,  174;  deprivations  in, 
174;  temporalities  of,  seized,  212; 
particulars  of,  434-71;  vacant  livings 
in,  number  of  livings  in,  443;  num- 
ber of  recusants  in,  469 ;  churches  in, 
sacked  and  defaced,  509-11;  recu- 
sants in,  553-4. 

Lone,  a  shipmaster,  takes  Catholic  fugi- 
tives abroad,  515. 

Lords,  House  of,  composition  of,  43 
sqq. ;  voting  strength  of,  89. 

Lovelace,  Wm.,  Visitor  for  Western 
dioceses,  177. 

Lovell,  family,  recusants,  551. 

Lowe,  Arthur,  absent  from  visitation, 
deprived,  149. 

Lumley,  Lord,  said  to  desire  change  of 
religion,  485;  arrested,  486;  ques- 
tioned by  Council,  487 ;  imprisoned, 
490. 

Luson,  Wm.,  Canon  of  St.  David's 
and  Hereford,  certainly  a  Catholic, 
349 ;  and  other  Papists,  367. 

Lylye,  Dr.,  favours  Popery  in  Balliol 
Coll.,  283. 

Lyne,  Anne,  recusant,  in  Sussex,  427. 

Lyons'  Inn,  free  of  recusants,  543-4. 

Lyte,  Maxwell,  Mr.,  Hist,  of  Eton 
College,  204. 


Macaulay,  Lord,  his  defence  of  Rebel- 
lion of  1688,  defence  of  Rising  of 
North,  1569,  500-1. 

Machyn,  on  presence  of  bishops  at 
Coronation,  37;  reports  imprisonment 
of  bishops,  in  n. ;  records  dispersal  of 
Dominicans,  127;  records  visitation 
of  London,  169;  records  depriva- 
tions, 171 ;  records  burning  of  roods, 
etc.,  172-4;  records  Bp.  Bonner's 
deprivation,  214;  records  abolition 
of  Mass  at  St.  Paul's,  214;  records 
deprivation  of  bishops,  215;  records 
appointment  of  Protestant  bishops, 
216;  reports  deprivation  of  Abp. 
Heath  and  Bp.  Thirlby,  217;  records 
intrepidity  of  Bp.  Tunstall,  219;  re- 
cords deprivation  of  Bp.  Tunstall, 
220. 

Magdalen  College,  Oxon,  departure  of 
Fellows  of,  273. 

Magistrates,  to  be  replaced,  17. 

Maitland,  Mr.  F.  W.,  on  Constitution 
of  Parliament,  55 ;  on  passage  of  Bill 
of  Supremacy,  76,  77;  on  Bill  of 
Uniformity,  90  n. 

Mallet,  Fras.,  priest,  deprived,  442  n. 

Mallocke,  J.,  of  All  Souls  Coll.,  Oxon, 
recusant,  281. 

Man  [John],  elected  Warden  of  Merton 
Coll.,  opposed,  287. 

Manchester  College,  visitation  at, 
157- 

Manchester,  recusants  in,  323. 

Mandate,  to  consecrate  Parker  Abp., 
236;  Messrs.  Denny  and  Lacey  on, 
236  n.;  Royal  (second),  for  conse- 
cration of  Abp.  Parker,  241. 

Mandatum  Citatorium,  144. 

Markham,  Rob.,  S.J.,  of  Gonville, 
269. 

Markenfield,  Thos.,  noted  as  "evil  of 
religion,"  491. 

Marks,  Stephen,  of  Exeter  Coll.,  Oxon, 
resigns,  294. 

Marley,  Nich.,  sequestered,  and  later 
deprived,  156. 

Marley,  Stephen,  sequestered,  and  later 
deprived,  156. 


58o 


INDEX 


Marshall,  John,  educated  at  Oxford, 
255;  of  New  Coll.,  Oxon,  and  Win- 
chester School,  277. 

Marshall,  Ric,  priest,  deprived,  442  n. 

Marshall,  Thos.,  of  Lincoln  Coll., 
Oxon,  recusant,  285. 

Marshalsea,  confessions  heard  in,  531. 

Martin,  Gregory,  educated  at  Oxford, 
255 ;  of  St.  John's,  Oxon,  290. 

Martyr,  Peter,  at  Oxford,  253;  pro- 
fessor there,  255 ;  invited  back  to 
Oxford,  declines,  258. 

Marj%  Queen  of  England,  annulled 
Acts  against  her  mother,  476 ;  legis- 
lation of,  against  married  clergy,  64 ; 
work  of,  to  purge  the  Church,  189; 
last  illness  and  death  of,  5. 

Mary,  dau.  of  James  IV  of  Scotl.,  mar- 
ries Henry  VII,  475. 

Mary  Q.  of  Scots,  parentage  of,  475; 
rival  to  Elizabeth,  475  sqq.  ;  nearest 
to  Engl.  Throne  by  primogeniture, 
476 ;  married  to  Francis,  Dauphin  of 
France;  widowed;  claims  Engl. 
Throne;  marries  L.  Darnley;  gives 
birth  to  son,  James,  later  K.  of  Eng- 
land, 477;  L.  Darnley  murdered; 
carried  off  by  Bothwell;  marries  him; 
captured  and  imprisoned  in  Loch- 
leven;  escapes;  Battle  of  Langside; 
takes  refuge  in  England,  477 ;  submits 
her  case  to  Elizabeth  for  arbitration ; 
delays;  kept  prisoner;  Englishmen 
sympathise,  477-8;  in  prison  at  Tut- 
bury,  479;  cause  of,  espoused  by 
D.  Guerau  de  Spes,  480;  English 
nobles  try  to  get  her  declared  Eliza- 
beth's successor,  485 ;  guard  over,  in- 
creased, 486 ;  removed  to  Coventry, 

493- 
Mason,  Sir  John,  educated  at  Oxford, 
254;  sent  to  Cateau  Cambresis,  7; 
ordered  to  see  to  seizure  of  temporali- 
ties of  Sees  during  vacancy,  239; 
Visitor  of  Oxford  Univ.,  272;  seeks 
to  excuse  bad  treatment  of  Quadra, 

453- 
Mass,     for    the    Dead    celebrated    by 
Knights  of  the  Garter,  32 ;  many  re- 


nounce the,  23;  desire  for  retention 
of,  in  H.  of  Lords,  77 ;  frequency  of, 
456 ;  at  Sir  Thos.  Wharton's  houses, 
456;  in  French  ambassador's  house 
456 ;  punishment  for  hearing  or  say 
ing,  457 ;  people  in  prison  for  hear 
ing,  458;  Papists  arrested  for  hear 
ing,  462 ;  many  attend,  463 ;  Papist 
arraigned  and  condemned  for  hearing, 
463;  rejected,  unlawful  after  fixed 
date,  502 ;  fines  for,  exulted  over  by 
Jewel,  509 ;  prisoners  for  hearing  and 
saying  Mass,  528,  529;  at  ambas- 
sadors' houses,  453-6,  530;  at  various 
houses,  531 ;  said  in  many  houses  in 
London,  532 ;  in  Lincolnshire,  532 ; 
"it  is  the,  that  matters,"  87. 

Massenger,  Wm.,  priest,  deprived, 
442  n. 

Master,  Dr.,  Visitor  of  Oxford  Univ., 
272. 

Mathew,  Tobie,  Head  of  St.  John's 
Coll.,  Oxon,  290. 

Mayne,  Cuthbert,  of  St.  John's  Coll., 
Oxon,  291. 

Meredith,  John,  of  St.  John's  Coll., 
Oxon,  291. 

Meredith,  Wm.,  of  Gloucester,  Hall, 
Oxon,  "a  horrible  Papist,"  293;  a 
priest,  examined,  465  and  n. 

Merton  Coll.,  Oxon,  Memorials  of, 
285-7. 

Mey,  Dr.  Wm.,  appointed  Visitor  of 
Cambridge,  260. 

Meynell,  Sergeant,  stubborn  Papist, 
305- 

Meyrick,  Rowland,  confirmed  and  con- 
secrated Bp.  of  Bangor,  250;  reports 
on  diocese  of  Bangor,  344. 

Michell,  Davy,  priest,  427. 

Michiel,  Giovanni,  on  abolition  of  Mass, 
24. 

Middleton,  Marmaduke,  Bp.  of  St. 
David's,  reports  on  Popery  there,  in 

1583.  35°- 

Midlands,  mostly  conformable,  551. 

Mildmay,  Sir  Walter,  to  look  to  ex- 
change of  bishops'  lands,  239. 

Ministers,  dearth  of,  506. 


INDEX 


581 


Miniver  (or  Menevar),  a  priest,  har- 
boured in  Hereford,  366,  370. 

Mitforde,  Sir  J.,  a  Justice  "doubted" 
for  recusancy,  340. 

Monasteries  suppressed  by  royal  com- 
mission, 125;  revival  of,  under  Mary, 
126  sqq. 

"Monks'  Hall,"  292;  bought  by  Sir 
Th.  White,  292. 

Montagu,  Viscount,  and  family,  recu- 
sants, 427;  wants  Q.  of  Scots  de- 
clared Elizabeth's  successor,  485; 
speaks  in  House  of  Lords  against 
anti- Papist  legislation,  538. 

Morden,  Fr.,  S.  J.,  468. 

More,  Henry,  sequestered,  153. 

More,  Bl.  Thomas,  educated  at  Oxford, 
254. 

Morgan,  Henry,  Bp.,  absent  from  Par- 
liament, 45;  deprived,  214,  216; 
exact  date  of  deprivation  of,  218; 
death  of,  223. 

Morlaye,  Geof.,  absent  from  Visitation, 
149;  conformed,  151. 

Morley,  Lady,  house  of,  raided  for 
priests  and  hearers  of  Mass,  462,  532. 

Morley,  Lord,  wants  Q.  of  Scots  de- 
clared Elizabeth's  successor,  485 ; 
refuses  oath  of  Supremacy,  520. 

Morren,  John,  imprisoned  for  preach- 
ing, 24;  priest,  deprived,  442  n. 

Morysse  (Morris),  Geo.,  priest,  deal- 
ings with,  352. 

Moses,  Father,   a 
429. 

Moundeford,  Fras. 

Mowse,  Wm.,  Dr. 


friar  in  Chichester, 


of  Gonville,  268. 
145;  removed  from 
Trinity  Hall,  Camb.,  263. 

Mugge,  a  priest  harboured  in  Hereford, 
364,  366,  368. 

Mullinger.  Mr.  J.  Bass,  on  Visitors  of 
Cambridge  Univ.,  260;  on  expulsions 
of  Heads  of  Colleges  at  Camb.,  262-3. 

Munden,  John,  of  New  Coll.,  Oxon, 
277;  deprived,  279. 

Musmere,  Wm. ,  priest,  deprived,  442  n. 

Myers,  Matthew,  priest,  probably  de- 
prived, 442  n. 

Mygley,  Christopher,  fate  of,  147. 


Nag's  Head  fable,  249. 

Neale,  John,  Rector  of  Exeter  Coll., 
Oxon,  deprived,  294. 

Newcastle-on-Tyne,  favourable  to  Re- 
formation, 339. 

New  College,  Fellows  of,  recusant, 
168;  Bp.  Home's  visitation  of,  276 
sqq. ;  distinguished  alumni  of,  277; 
visitation  of,  in  1566,  279. 

New  Hall,  Essex,  inventory  of  church 
stuff  at,  16  n.,  52S;  Mass  said  at,  456, 
528 ;  raided  for  Mass  stuff,  528. 
i    Newman,  Card.,  on  burning  for  heresy 
by  Elizabethan  bishop,  333  n. 

Noble,  John,  of  New  Coll.,  Oxon,  278. 

Norfolk,  County  of,  recusants  in,  551; 
recusancy  in,  535. 
!  Norfolk,  Duke  of,  records  unwilling- 
ness in  North  to  submit,  304;  sug- 
gested as  husband  for  Mary,  Q.  of 
Scots,  480;  proposal  to  marry  Q.  of 
Scots  debated  in  Council,  484;  ex- 
presses willingness  to  rejoin  Catholic 
Church,  482,  483;  said  to  desire 
change  of  religion,  485 ;  preparing 
friends  for  rising,  487;  flees  from 
Court,  487 ;  captured,  487. 

Norman,  Ric,  conformed,  152. 

North  Bailey  parish,  Durham,  vacant, 
338. 
}    North  of  England  willing  to  rise  against 
Elizabeth,  483. 

Northern  Province,  visitation  of,  140 
sqq. ;  statistics  of  conformists  and  re- 
cusants in,  163;  number  of  clergy 
in,  163;  visitation  of,  Mr.  R.  Simp- 
son's analysis  of  results  of,  186 sqq.; 
not  all  priests  who  refused  oath  de- 
prived, reason  of  this,  193-4;  visita- 
tion of,  ordered,  219. 
Northumberland,  Countess  of,  raid  on 

house  of,  327. 
Northumberland,  Earl  of,  plots  with 
Spanish  ambassador,  481  ;  verbally 
promises  him  to  rise,  483;  wants  Q. 
of  Scots  declared  Elizabeth's  succes- 
sor, 485;  summoned  to  Elizabeth's 
presence,  491  ;  refuses  to  obey 
Queen's  summons,  491;  captured,  497. 


582 


INDEX 


Northwich,  visitation  and  plague  at, 
158. 

Norton,  Baldwin,  deprived,  152. 

Norton,  Fras.,  noted  as  "evil  of  re- 
ligion," 491. 

Norton,  — ,  draws  up  suggestions  for 
control  of  schoolmasters,  543  and 
«.,  544. 

Norwich,  City,  men  burnt  for  heresy 
there,  333. 

Norwich  Diocese,  statistics  of,  179; 
visitation  of,  179;  Injunctions  against 
popish  practices  in,  378-9;  account 
of,  statistics  of,  378-384 ;  large  number 
of  vacant  livings  in,  380. 

Nottingham,  visitation  at,  144;  recus- 
ancy of  clergy  in,  164;  recusancy  in, 
549- 

Nottinghamshire,  "  subject  to  mali- 
cious practices"  of  Papists,  319; 
wrongly  reported  to  be  conformable, 

335- 
Nowell,  Alex.,  educated  at  Oxford, 
255;  Visitor  of  Oxford  Univ.,  272; 
appointed  Dean  of  St.  Paul's,  214; 
reports  that  Cath.  bishops  are  dis- 
missing their  servants,  209 ;  proposed 
for  See  of  Carlisle,  230;  preaches  in 
Lancashire,  318. 

Oath  of  Supremacy  ordered  to  be  en- 
forced, 184;  not  strictly  enforced  at 
first,  190. 

O'Brien,  Maurice,  on  Papists,  520. 

Oglethorpe,  Owen,  Bp.,  educated  at 
Oxford,  255  ;  refuses  to  make  rubrical 
changes,  22 ;  consents  to  crown  Eliza- 
beth, 36;  present  in  Parliament,  46  ; 
dismisses  his  servants,  209 ;  deprived, 
215;  death  of,  223. 

Oglethorpe,  recusant  family,  in  Oxford- 
shire, 404. 

Orders,  Anglican,  Leo  XIII  and,  246; 
Strype  on  Roman  objections  to, 
246. 

Ordinal,  K.  Edward's,  not  legal  in 
Elizabeth's  reign,  245 ;  defective  and 
invalid,  246;  condemned  by  Rome 
as  deficient,  247. 


Orston  parish,  without  reformed  service 
books,  164. 

Osburne,  Edw.,  priest  of  Gonville,  269. 

Osmotherley,  images  at,  saved,  165. 

Oswald,  a  priest  harboured  in  Here- 
ford, 366. 
i  Otley,  visitation  at,  147. 
j  Overton,  Wm.,  Bp.  of  Coventry  and 
Lichfield,  says  he  has  "stubbornest 
diocese,"  401 ;  Treasurer  of  Chiches- 
ter, 426;  reports  Popery  in  diocese, 
427. 

Owen,  Hugh,  fled  abroad,  347. 

Owen,  recusant  family  in  Oxfordshire, 
404. 

Oxford,  City,  declared  by  Mayor  to  be 
thoroughly  Papist,  508. 

Oxford  Diocese,  particulars  of,  402-4; 
vacancies  in,  402. 

Oxford,  Earl  of,  raids  Borley  and  New- 
hall  for  Mass  stuff,  528. 

Oxford  Univ.,  produced  most  recus- 
ants, 254;  Catholic  alumni  in,  254-5; 
Reformer  alumni  in,  254-5;  charged 
with  "  ignorance  and  obstinacy," 
257 ;  many  Papists  there,  257  ; 
statistics  of  degrees  in  sixteenth  cen- 
tury, 258;  conformity  in,  271;  com- 
mission to  visit,  issue  of,  272. 

Oxfordshire,  recusant  families  in,  404; 
recusancy  in,  centre  of  Catholicity, 
55i- 


Paget,  Lord  Wm.,  510. 

Pallavicino,  on  Pope's  attitude  towards 
Elizabeth,  10  «. 

Palmer,  Geo.,  deprived,  145;  in  prison 
for  recusancy,  325. 

Palmer,  Nich.,  priest,  deprived,  442  n. 

Palmer,  Wm.,  leases  Gloucester  Hall, 
a  Papist,  292. 

Papists  in  Universities,  Abp.  Parker  on, 
295  ;  subterfuges  of,  300 ;  immense 
number  of,  but  concealed,  Bp.  Cox's 
statement  about,  389 ;  different  kinds 
of,  521 ;  subterfuges  of,  to  escape 
Communion  and  conformity,  522; 
sons  of,  used  as  hostages,  529. 


INDEX 


583 


Parallyday,  old  woman,   in  prison  for 

hearing  Mass,  528. 
Parishes,  number  of,  337. 
Parker,  Abp. ,  career  of,  232 ;  educated 
at  Cambridge,  255  ;  character  of,  471 ; 
proposed  for  Canterbury,  230;  de- 
signated for  Canterbury,  231  ;  selec- 
tion of,  as  Abp.,  216,  232  sqq.;  de- 
scribes qualities  necessary  in  Abp.  of 
Cant.,  233  ;  desires  to  refuse  Abpric, 
234;  accepts,  235;  elected,  235; 
commission  to,  as  "nominated  Bp. 
of  Cant.,"  235;  royal  assent  to  elec- 
tion of,  219,  236;  mandate  to  conse- 
crate, 236 ;  second  royal  mandate  for 
consecration  of,  241 ;  mistakes  in 
signature  when  only  elect  of  Cant., 
235-6;  on  legal  difficulties  about  his 
consecration,  242  sqq. ;  legal  diffi- 
culties in  way  of  consecration  of, 
242  sqq. ;  legal  difficulties  connected 
with  consecration  of,  237  sqq. ;  con- 
secration of,  248;  and  Nag's  Head 
fable,  249-250  ;  consecrates  bishops, 
250  ;  reminds  Cecil  of  Queen's 
powers  over  Church,  19;  inhibits 
suffragans  from  continuing  visita- 
tions, 183  and  n. ;  prevents  bishops 
from  enforcing  oath,  193;  reports  on 
Eton  College,  205-6;  has  hopes  of 
conformity  of  Bp.  Tunstall,  221;  De 
Antiquitate  Brit.  Ecclesiae,  259;  per- 
mits Cambridge  to  appoint  Preacher 
without  degrees,  259;  appointed  Visi- 
tor of  Cambridge,  260;  warns  Cecil 
not  to  let  Heads  of  Colleges  "slide 
away  with  a  gain,"  261;  orders  de- 
struction of  church  stuff  at  All  Souls 
Coll.,  Oxon,  281 ;  intervenes  to  purge 
Merton  Coll.  of  Popery,  287;  on 
Papists  in  Universities,  295 ;  ordered 
to  take  Bp.  Downham  to  task  for  re- 
missness, 320;  reports  on  Justices  of 
Glamorganshire  and  Monmouthshire, 
345 ;  dislikes  inquisitions,  345 ;  urges 
visitation  of  Hereford  Cathedral,  365 ; 
grieved  over  remissness  of  Bp.  of 
Norwich,  381 ;  demands  return  about 
Ely   diocese,    388;    furnishes   return 


about  Oxford  diocese,  402;  recom- 
mends Bp.  Jewel's  Apology,  409; 
makes  visitation  of  diocese  of  Chi- 
chester, 427;  credits  London  with 
leading  in  Reformation,  434 ;  forbids 
ordination  of  ignorant  mechanics, 
439;  forbids  bishops  to  hold  visita- 
tion of  their  dioceses,  440 ;  concerned 
about  Popery  in  Inns  of  Court,  447; 
issues  Injunctions  for  visitation  of 
Canterbury  diocese,  474 ;  put  in 
charge  of  Sir  John  Southworth,  518. 

Parker,  Ric,  priest,  in  Lincolnshire, 
532. 

Parker,  Thos. ,  sent  to  prison :  conforms, 
515;  outwardly  conforms,  529 ;  to  be 
examined,  528;  priest,  probably  de- 
prived, 443  n. 

Parker,  family,  recusants,  394. 

Parkhurst,  John  (Bp.),  educated  at  Ox- 
ford, 254 ;  announces  his  appointment 
to  Norwich,  251 ;  elected,  251;  bit- 
terness of,  against  recusants,  208; 
warns  Bullinger  against  Oxford,  256 ; 
378;  earnest  in  extirpating  errors, 
378;  issues  Injunctions,  378;  for- 
wards statistics  of  Norwich  diocese, 
380;  charged  with  neglect  of  Diocese 
of  Norwich,  381 ;  deplores  dearth  of 
ministers,  507. 

Parkhurst,  Rob.,  priest,  427. 

Parliament,  gives  disposal  of  Crown  to 
Henry  VIII,  1;  opening  of,  39;  un- 
fairness of  elections  to,  53 ;  casts  off 
Rome,  42;  founder  of  Church  of 
England,  93 ;  dissolution  of  First,  of 
Elizabeth,  94. 

Parry,  Hy.,  Visitor  for  western  dioceses, 
177- 

Parry,  Sir  Thos.,  Visitor  of  Oxford 
Univ.,  272. 

Pate,  Richard  (Bp.),  educated  at  Ox- 
ford, 255;  present  in  Parliament,  46; 
deprived,  216. 

Pates,  Rob.,  "ousted,"  160. 

Paul  IV,  attitude  of,  towards  Elizabeth, 
7  sqq.,  II  ft. 

Paulet,  Lord  Chideock,  recusant,  420, 
529  n. 


584 


INDEX 


Paulet,  Sir   Hugh,  records  rapid  con-    j 
formity  of  Shrewsbury,  514. 

Paul's  Cross,  reformers  preach  at,  29. 

Peacock,  Dr.,  endeavoured  to  secure 
papist  Fellows,  261;  appealed  against 
in  vain  to  Cecil,  261. 

Peckham,  Sir  Robt.,  "  hinderer," 
339- 

Pedder,  John,  without  promotion, 
230. 

Peel,  John,  Marian  priest,  301. 

Peers,  Spiritual,  in  House  of  Lords, 
44;  list  of,  in  1559,  46  sqq.;  analysis 
of,  ibid. ;  occasional  absence  from 
sittings  of  Plmt.,  50  sqq. ;  Catholic, 
did  not  always  vote  against  Govern- 
ment, 51. 

Peerse,  John,  priest,  probably  deprived, 
443  n. 

Peerson,  Rob.,  priest,  probably  de- 
prived, 443  n. 

Peile,  Mr.  J.,  on  character  of  Edw. 
Hawford,  262. 

Pembroke,  Wm.,  Earl  of,  Visitor  for 
western  dioceses,  177;  arrested,  486; 
questioned  by  Council,  487;  impri- 
soned, 490. 

Pensions  offered  to  induce  resignation, 
194. 

Percivall,  Robt.,  "ousted,"  160. 

Percy,    Sir   Hy.,    Visitor   at  Durham, 

155- 

Percy,  Thos.,  of  Exeter  Coll.,  Oxon, 
294. 

Perkins,  family,  recusants,  552. 

Persecution,  how  understood  and  why 
practised  in  sixteenth  century,  525. 

Personnel  of  Elizabeth's  First  Parlia- 
ment, 43  sqq. 

Persons,  Robt,  S.J.,  educated  at  Ox- 
ford, 255;  of  Balliol  Coll.,  Oxon, 
2S3;  took  no  oath  of  Supremacy 
whil^e  at  Oxford,  507 ;  gives  no  details 
about  deprived  clergy  remaining  in 
England,  190. 

Peter,  Ric,  conformed,  152. 

Peterborough  Dioc,  Popery  in,  384-6; 
details  about  recusants  in,  3S4;  re- 
cusants in,  551. 


Philip  II,  loyalty  of,  to  England,  34; 
proposal  that  he  should  marry  Eliza- 
beth, 34;  supports  exiled  religious, 
135;  favours  Elizabeth  as  against  Mary 
Q.  of  Scots;  thought  of  marrying 
Elizabeth,  478;  cautiously  considers 
feasibility  of  deposing  Elizabeth,  481 
sqq.;  approves  of  rising  in  favour  of 
Q.  of  Scots,  489;  gives  permission 
for  recourse  to  force  in  aid  of  Q.  of 
Scots,  495-6 ;  suggests  monetary  help, 
496 ;  annoyed  at  publication  of  papal 
Bull  against  Elizabeth,  499 ;  supports 
English  fugitives  abroad,  545. 

Phillips,  Fabian,  disputes  with  Bp.  of 
St.  David's,  351. 

Phillips,  Hugh,  "  late  monk  in  West- 
minster," says  Mass,  463,  532. 

Physicians,  College  of,  mostly  Papists, 
445 ;  a  close  corporation,  445. 

Piers,  John,  Bp.  of  Rochester,  433; 
translated  from  Rochester  to  Salis- 
bury, 41 1 ;  makes  return  of  Berks  and 
Wilts  recusants,  411. 

Piggott,  recusant  family,  in  Oxford- 
shire, 404. 

Pilcher  — ,  of  Balliol  Coll.,  suspect 
Papist,  283. 

Pilgrimages  made  to  wells,  etc.,  350. 

Pilkington,  James  (Bp.),  educated  at 
Cambridge,  255;  appointed  Visitor 
of  Cambridge,  260 ;  proposed  for  See 
of  Chichester,  230;  consecrated  Bp. 
of  Durham,  250;  on  introduction 
of  Prayer  Book  of  Edward  VI,  27 ;  on 
the  frustration  of  his  efforts,  182;  ex- 
plains difference  of  his  episcopal 
powers  compared  with  Bp.  Tunstall's, 
247;  reports  stubbornness  of  Pa- 
pists in  Durham,  305 ;  deplores  lack 
of  power,  306;  disheartened,  opposed, 
306;  reports  stubbornness  of  Lanca- 
shire, 307;  and  family,  forced  to  fly 
from  Durham,  308;  complains  of  re- 
missness of  Bp.  Downham,  316;  re- 
ports unfavourably  on  Justices,  340; 
provides  dowers  for  his  daughters  out 
of  Durham  revenues,  374  n. ;  com- 
plains  that  Prot.   bishops  were  out- 


INDEX 


585 


witted  by  predecessors,  374  and  «.; 
reports  on  recusancy  in  Durham  Dio- 
cese, 534 ;  death  of,  308. 

Pits,  John,  of  New  Coll.,  Oxon,  277. 

Pitts,  recusant  family,  in  Oxfordshire, 
404. 

Pius    V,    excommunicates     Elizabeth, 

499- 

Plays  against  religion,  II  Schifanoya 
on,  23.  * 

Plowden,  Edm.,  recusant,  410;  467; 
recusancy  of,  411  n.,  447;  refuses 
oath  of  Supremacy,  gives  reasons 
for  so  doing,  519-20. 

Plurality  necessary  in  Q.  Mary's  reign, 
189. 

Pocock,  Mr.  N.,  on  recusancy  of  clergy, 
168  «. 

Pole,  Reginald  (Cardinal),  educated  at 
Oxford,  254 ;  death  of,  223. 

Pole,  family,  recusants  in  Sussex,  427. 

Pomerell,  Wm.,  of  New  Coll.,  Oxon, 
278. 

Pontefract,  visitation  at,  147. 

Poole,  David  (Bp.),  educated  at  Ox- 
ford, 255;  asks  to  be  excused  from 
attending  Parliament,  45 ;  217;  royal 
mandate  to,  to  consecrate  Parker 
archbishop,  219,  236;  refused,  220, 
236;  deprived,  222;  living  in  Salop, 

395- 

Popery  in  Universities  means  more  in 
families  of  students,  296. 

Pounds,  recusant  family,  in  Hants, 
422. 

Powle,  Ric,  schoolmaster,  a  priest, 
late  of  Sutton,  370. 

Poynet,  John  (Bp. ),  educated  at  Cam- 
bridge,  254;    Bishop  of  Rochester, 

•433- 

Poyntz,  Rob.,  of  New  Coll.,  Oxon, 
277-8. 

Praemunire,  penalties  of,  incurred  by 
Papists,  538;  penalties  of,  for  re- 
cusancy, 541. 

Pratt,  Ric,  deprived,  204-5. 

Prayer  Book  of  Edward  VI  introduced, 
27 ;  cause  of  contention  at  Frankfort 
and  in  England,  226. 


Preachers  incite  to  rioting  in  churches, 
25- 

Prescot,  recusants  in,  323. 

Presentations  to  livings,  movement  of 
clergy  gauged  by,  184  sqq. 

Price,  Mrs.,  recusant,  persecuted  by 
Bp.  of  Lincoln,  394. 

Priests,  Marian,  work  in  England, 
300-1 ;  number  of,  secretly  labouring 
in  England,  302;  difficulties  of,  la- 
bouring in  England,  303 ;  kept  in 
gentlemen's  houses,  357. 

Proclamation  against  alterations  in 
Liturgy  and  preaching,  22 ;  for  Com- 
munion to  be  given  under  both  kinds, 
31,  78  n. ;  against  recusants  and  dis- 
guised priests,  541  and  n. 

Promotions  of  Protestants  projected, 
229. 

Proxies  in  House  of  Lords,  49  sqq. 

Pullen,  [John],  proposed  for  See  of 
Chester,  230. 

Pursglove,  Robt.  (Bp.),  deprived,  145. 

Pynchin,  John,  Mass  at  house  of,  in 
Westminster,  463,  532. 

Quadra,  Alvaro  de  (Bp. ),  Spanish  Am- 
bassador, 94  sqq. ;  records  refusal 
of  many  to  conform,  175;  records 
progress  of  visitations,  176;  reports 
disturbances  in  North  about  religion, 
181;  reports  celebration  of  many 
Masses  in  London,  181 ;  aids  recusant 
priests,  181 ;  reports  deprivation  of 
Bp.  Bonner  and  Dean  of  London, 
212;  records  deprivation  of  bishops, 
215;  records  release  of  Bp.  Watson 
from  Tower,  216;  relates  intrepidity 
of  Bp.  Tunstall,  218;  informs  Philip 
that  Bp.  Kitchin  had  conformed,  220; 
reports  on  Popery  in  York  diocese, 
324;  speaks  fearlessly  to  Elizabeth, 
449;  spied  upon,  450;  turned  out  of 
house,  450;  recounts  his  bad  treat- 
ment, 450-51;  aids  Catholics,  451; 
has  interviews  with  deposed  bishops, 
452;  Mass  said  in  house  of,  453; 
shows  how  Catholics  were  helped  in 
London,    454;    reports  abolition    of 


586 


INDEX 


Quadra,  Alvaro  de  (Bp.) — continued. 
Mass,  502;  comments  on  outward 
conformity,  503;  reports  Corpus 
Christi  procession  at  Canterbury,  505 ; 
reports  boldness  of  Oxford  students, 
507-8. 

Quarterly  Review,  viii,  ix,  x. 

Racton  parish,  Sussex,  remains  Catholic, 
427. 

Radcliffe,  recusancy  of  clergy  in,  164. 

Rainolds,  Edm.,  lived  sixty  years  at 
Gloucester  Hall,  292. 

Ramridge,  Dr.  John,  528. 

Rand,  — ,  a  priest  in  Wood  St.,  532. 

Randall,  Mr.,  keeps  priest  in  his  house 
in  Wood  St.,  532. 

Rashdall,  Dr.,  on  number  of  Papists  in 
New  Coll.,  Oxon,  277;  gives  list  of 
Fellows  of  New  Coll.,  Oxon,  who 
left,  27S;  on  number  of  Fellows  at 
New  Coll.,  Oxon,  who  left  for  con- 
science, 279. 

Rastall,  John,  helped  by  Quadra  when 
in  want,  182;  of  New  Coll.,  Oxon,    ■ 
277 ;  put  in  prison,  279 ;  of  Gloucester,    ! 
a  priest  harboured  in  Hereford,  366;    j 
twits   Protestants  with  ignorance  of 
their  ministers,  440  and  n. 

Recusants,  and  conformists,  percentages  - 
of,  162;  prefer  prison  to  lodging  in  : 
bishop's  house,  334;  lists  of,  546;  ! 
Council  require  register  of  lands  and  | 
property  of,  for  fining,  547;  a  table  1 
of,  554  and  n. 

Redman,  Thos.,  "ousted,"  160;  re-  1 
moved  from  Jesus  Coll.,  Camb.,  263. 

Reede,  Ric,  of  Exeter  Coll.,  Oxon, 
resigns,  294. 

Reformation,  English  attitude  towards 
according  to  Dr.  M.  Creighton,  121. 

Renan,  Ernest,  viii. 

Regnans  in  Excelsis,  promulgation  of  ' 
Bull,  498. 

Reniger,  Thos. ,  priest,  deprived,  442  n. 

Resignations  facilitated  by  offer  of  pen- 
sions, 194;  of  clergy,  number  of,  un- 
accounted for,  197;  numbers  of,  201, 


Restoration  of  clergy  deprived  by  Mar)-, 
196. 

Revel,  — ,  a  recusant,  398  and  n. 

Rewle,  rood  still  standing  at,  165. 

Reynolds,  Dr.,  Master  of  Merton  Coll., 
Oxon,  deprived,  fate  of,  285-6. 

Reynolds,  Jerome,  charged  with  con- 
cealing church  stuff,  275. 

Richardson,  Adam,  priest,  probably 
deprived,  443  n. 

Richmond,  visitation  at,  157;  remiss- 
ness of  laity  of,  in  attending  reformed 
service,  165;  recusants  in,  323. 

Richmondshire,  "very  obstinate  and 
rebellious,"  336. 

Ridley,  Nich.  (Bp.),  educated  at  Camb., 
254- 

Rioting  in  London,  24. 

Ripon,  rebels  at,  493. 

Risdon,  Edw.,  of  Exeter  Coll.,  Oxon, 
resigns,  295. 

Rishton,  Edward,  educated  at  Oxford, 
255;  on  numbers  of  Catholics,  180; 
gives  no  details  about  deprived  clergy 
remaining  in  England,  190. 

Rising  of  the  North,  1569,  475  sqq.  ; 
commencement  of,  492;  result  shows 
Elizabeth  secure  on  throne,  497 ;  de- 
fence of  principle  of,  500. 

Roberts,  John,  priest,  of  Gonville,  269. 

Roberts,  John,  O.S.B.,  of  St.  Johns 
College,  Oxon,  291. 

Robertson,  Mr.  C.  G.,  on  Popery  in 
All  Souls  Coll.,  Oxon,  280-2. 

Robertson,  Dr.  Thomas,  deprived,  155. 

Robinson,  John,  Head  of  St.  John's 
College,  Oxon,  290. 

Robinson,  Nich.  Bp.,  reports  that 
Popery  is  prevalent  in  Bangor  Dio- 
cese, 346;  ordered  to  search  houses 
for  popish  papers,  347. 

Rochdale,  only  parish  in  Lancashire 
not  "  far  out  of  order,"  307. 

Rochester  Dioc,  conge  d'ettre  to,  237; 
particulars  and  statistics  of,  432-4; 
recusants  in,  553. 

Rodarte,  Matthias,  helps  Dr.  Story  to 
escape,  and  administers  sacraments 
to  Catholics  in  London,  454. 


INDEX 


587 


Rogers,  Robt.,  priest,  probably  deprived, 

442". 
Rokeby,  John,  conformed,   146,   148, 

152. 
Rome,    French    intrigues    at,    against 

Elizabeth,  7  sqq. ;  cast  off  by  Act  of 

Parliament,  42. 
Roods  burnt  in  London,  172  sqq. 
Rookwood,   Hy.,  priest,  of  Gonville, 

269. 
Roper,    Sir    Wm.,    "descendant"    of 

Thomas  More,  290  n. ;   recusant,  of 

Kent,  434;  "outwardly"  conforms, 

517;    refuses    oath,    519;    recusant, 

553- 

Rotaker,  Chr.,  character  of,  224. 
Rotherborn,   images  still   standing  at, 

165. 
Rous,  Thos. ,  refuses  oath  of  Supremacy, 

520. 
Russell,  Geo.,  of  St.  John's,  Oxon,  291 

and  n. 
Rutland,  Earl  of,  reports  recusancy  in 

York  diocese,  323. 
Ryce,  — ,  refuses  to  conform ;  a  prisoner, 

516. 

Sackville,   Sir   Ric,   seizes   papers   of 

bishops,  no;  to  look  to  exchange  of 

bishops'  lands,  239. 
Sackville,  Thomas,  interview  of,  with 

Paul  IV,  11  ». 
Sadler,    Sir    Ralph,    says    religion    is 

cause  of  Rising  of  the  North,  489. 
St.   Asaph's   Dioc,    statistics  of,  345; 

reported   on  unfavourably,   348;  no 

recusants  reported  in,  in  1573,  348. 
St.    Christopher-le-Stock,    Church   of, 

inventory  of  goods   and   their   fate, 

St.  Cross,  Master  of,  recusant,  168. 

St.  David's  Diocese,  statistics  of,  345 ; 
"disorders"  in,  reported,  349-50; 
recusancy  in,  550. 

St.  George's  Feast,  celebration  of,  by 
Knights  of  the  Garter,  32. 

St.  John's  Coll.,  Oxon,  288;  very- 
papist  in  tone,  291. 

St.  John,  Lord,  recusant,  420. 


St.  Paul's,  removal  of  Bl.  Sacrament 
from,  96. 

St.  Winifred's  Well,  pilgrimages  to, 
355- 

Sale,  Wm.,  commissary  of  Bp.  Ben- 
tham,  makes  visitation  of  diocese  of 
Cov.  and  Lichf.,  396. 

Salisbury,  John,  Bp.,  mandate  to,  to 
consecrate  Abp.,  241;  consecrated 
according  to  Roman  Pontifical,  24S. 

Salisbury  Cathedral,  struck  by  light- 
ning, 408. 

Salisbury,  Diocese,  particulars  of,  404- 
12;  statistics  of,  410. 

Salkeld,  Lancelot,  conformed,  156; 
later  deprived,  156. 

Salvyn,  Ant.,  deprived,  156;  of  Univ. 
Coll.,  Oxon,  deprived,  280. 

Salvyn,  Master,  Visitor  of  London 
diocese,  169. 

Salvyn,  Ric,  sequestered,  153. 

Sampson,  Thos.,  educated  at  Cam- 
bridge, 255;  looks  for  promotion, 
98;  proposed  for  See  of  Salisbury, 
230;  got  no  bishopric,  252. 

Sander,  Nicholas,  educated  at  Oxford, 
255;  of  New  Coll.,  Oxon,  277;  on 
Elizabeth's  title  to  Crown,  2;  ex- 
plains why  Oglethorpe  crowned 
Elizabeth,  37 ;  on  details  of  conduct 
of  Westminster  Conference,  104;  re- 
bukes Abbot  Feckenham's  com- 
plaisance at  Westminster  Conference, 
no;  relates  Protestant  insults  to 
Catholic  religious  feeling  at  Westm. 
Conference,  113;  unable  to  arrive  at 
true  numbers  of  deprivations,  186 
gives  no  details  about  deprived 
clergy  remaining  in  England,  190; 
reports  to  Card.  Moroni  on  Trin. 
Coll.,  Camb.,  269;  reports  to  Card. 
Moroni  on  Catholicity  of  New  Coll., 
Oxon,  278-9;  records  sacrilege  of 
some  Marian  priests,  300;  Rock  of 
the  Church,  by,  found  in  Sussex, 
428. 
Sandys,  Edwin  (Bp.),  educated  at 
Cambridge,  255;  looks  for  promo- 
tion, 99;  bewails  poverty  and  lack  of 


588 


INDEX 


Sandys,  Edwin  (Bp.) — continued. 
preferment,  228;  eccl.  Visitor,  work 
of,  143  sqq.;  "restored"  to  living, 
160;  proposed  for  See  of  Hereford, 
230;  confirmed  and  consecrated  Bp. 
of  Worcester,  250;  announces  his 
consecration  to  Peter  Martyr,  251; 
charges  against,  356 ;  Articles  of 
Enquiry  at  visitation  of  Worcester 
diocese,  359;  translated  to  London 
and  York,  361;  459;  his  reliance  for 
support  on  L.  Burghley,  459;  makes 
raid  on  Portuguese  Ambassador's 
house  for  priests  and  Papists,  460-1, 
462-3 ;  sends  unfavourable  report  on 
recusants  in  Yorkshire,  334,  335; 
reports  on  recusancy  in  the  North, 
548-9;  instances  of  nepotism,  361-2; 
defends  his  action,  362;  becomes 
Abp.  of  Cant.,  333;  suggests  putting 
Q.  of  Scots  to  death,  and  sending 
Cath.  Bps.  to  prison,  332 ;  and  that 
Anabaptists  should  be  put  to  death, 
332 ;  on  passage  of  Bill  of  Uniformity, 
92 ;  refers  to  old  Marian  priests  say- 
ing Mass  secretly  in  1579,  193. 

Sarpi,  Paolo,  on  Pope's  attitude  to- 
wards Elizabeth,  10  n. 

Saxye,  Wm.,  fate  of,  146. 

Sayer,  Robt.,  O.S.B.,  of  Gonville, 
269. 

Scambler,  Edmund  (Bp.),  educated  at 
Cambridge,  255;  bravery  of,  158; 
advocates  patience,  299;  Bp.  of 
Peterborough,  384;  dependent  on 
L.  Burghley  for  his  power,  385. 

Schifanoya,  II,  meaning  of  name,  iden- 
tification of,  41  n. ;  on  religious  in- 
novations, 21;  mentions  return  of 
religious  exiles,  21;  on  plays  against 
religion,  23 ;  on  proclamation  against 
preaching,  23 ;  on  rioting  in  London 
churches,  25;  on  religious  prosecu- 
tions, 28;  on  steadfastness  of  Catho- 
lics, 29;  on  Bp.  Scory's  sermon  | 
against  the  Pope  and  the  Mass,  30; 
on  the  methods  of  the  Reformers, 
31;  describes  coronation,  37;  on  j 
title,  "Supreme  Head,"  57  «.;    on    I 


Bill  for  collation  of  Bishops,  70;  on 
Bill  for  dissolution  of  monasteries, 
71  «.,  72;  on  retention  of  the  Mass, 
78;  on  Bill  of  Supremacy,  73;  says 
it  is  being  hotly  debated,  75,  77;  on 
opposition  to  Bill  of  Supremacy,  82 ; 
on  difficulties  in  Plmt.  over  title, 
"  Supreme  Head,"  83  n. ;  says  Eliza- 
beth does  not  want  title  "Supreme 
Head,"  85;  on  dissolution  of  monas- 
teries under  Elizabeth,  131;  records 
disbanding  of  Benedictines,  132;  re- 
ports on  refusal  to  take  oath  of  Su- 
premacy, 208 ;  reports  that  Bp.  Bon- 
ner is  ordered  to  remove  the  Mass, 
210 ;  describes  deprivation  of  Bp. 
Bonner,  212;  records  deprivations  of 
bishops,  214;  records  steadfastness 
of  Catholic  bishops,  217;  deprivation 
of  Abp.  Heath  and  Bp.  Thirlby,  217; 
records  abolition  of  Rogation  pro- 
cessions, 438;  reports  mob  violence 
against  Papists,  504;  reports  aboli- 
tion of  Mass  except  at  St.  Paul's, 
505. 

Schoolmasters  keep  up  Catholicism, 
385  n. 

Scory,  John  (Bp. ),  educated  at  Cam- 
bridge, 255;  Bp.  of  Hereford,  account 
of,  362-3 ;  Bp.  of  Rochester  and  Chi- 
chester, 363,  433;  consecrated  by 
K.  Edw.'s  Ordinal,  246;  preaches 
against  the  Pope  and  the  Mass,  30; 
proposed  for  See  of  Hereford,  230; 
designated  for  Hereford,  231;  ap- 
pointed to  Hereford,  216;  election 
of,  by  Chapter  of  Hereford,  237; 
receives  mandate  to  consecrate  Par- 
ker Abp.,  219,236;  second  mandate 
to,  to  consecrate  Abp.,  241;  assists 
at  Parker's  consecration,  248 ;  desires 
Lord  Burghley  to  remove  him  from 
Hereford,  363;  complains  of  Ric. 
Harford,  363;  confesses  he  is  hated 
in  Hereford  Diocese,  364 ;  complains 
of  independence  of  Cathedral  and 
Chapter  of  Hereford,  365 ;  in  fear  of 
personal  violence  from  Papists,  368 ; 
provides  amply  for  his  own  family, 


INDEX 


589 


369 ;  fears  vengeance  of  the  Papists, 
369;  makes  out  list  of  recusants, 
55o. 

Scot,  Cuthbert,  Bp.  of  Chester,  edu- 
cated at  Cambridge,  255 ;  present  in 
Parliament,  46;  speech  of,  against 
Bill  of  Supremacy,  80;  speech  of, 
against  Bill  of  Uniformity,  91;  de- 
privation of,  158;  deprived,  216. 

Scudamore,  John,  refuses  oath  of 
Supremacy,  519. 

Seaton,  John,  absent  from  visitation, 
deprived,  149. 

Sees,  vacant  in  1559,  44  and  n. ;  vacant 
at  Mary's  death,  223;  exchange  of 
lands  of,  238  sqq. 

Sequestration,  definition  of,  150;  how 
this  sentence  sometimes  misleads  re- 
search, 154. 

Service  books  referred  to  Committee, 
18. 

Sewell,  Hugh,  Preb.  of  Carlisle,  only 
commendable  canon,  312. 

Sharpe,  Sir  Cuthbert,  viii;  says  reli- 
gion was  cause  of  Rising  of  North, 
489 ;  criticism  by,  of  Rising  of  North, 
493 ;  remarks  of,  on  ending  of  Rising, 
494. 

Shaw,  Hy.,  of  St.  John's,  Oxon,  291. 

Sheldon,  Ralph,  at  Gloucester  Hall, 
Oxon,  292. 

Sheldon,  recusant  family,  in  Oxford- 
shire, 404. 

Shelley,  Sir  Ric,  gives  reasons  for  re- 
maining abroad,  510. 

Shelley,  recusant  family,  in  Hants, 
422. 

Shelley,  family  of  recusants  in  Sussex, 
427. 

Shelley  family,  recusants,  468. 

Shelley,  of  Michelgrove,  family,  re- 
cusants, 553. 

Sherwin,  Ralph,  Fell,  of  Exeter  Coll., 
Oxon,  martyred,  294. 

Shrewsbury  City,  conforms  at  once,  514. 

Shrewsbury,  Earl  of,  complains  of 
freedom  of  Papists  in  dioc.  of  Cov. 
and  Lichf.,  398;  seeks  for  priests 
and  Papists,  461. 


Shropshire,  reported  full  of  Papists, 
399;  recusancy  in,  551;  number  of 
recusants  in,  552. 

Sigewick,  Dr.  Thos.,  deprived,  153. 

Silva,  Don  Guzman  de,  Spanish  Am- 
bassador in  England,  479. 

Silvertop,  Andrew,  recusant,  422,  552. 

Simpson,  Henry,  examined  about  fugi- 
tives, 545. 

Simpson,  Mr.  Richard,  xii;  on  number 
of  conformists  and  recusants,  163 ;  on 
reasons  urging  to  conformity,  167; 
on  attitude  of  Marian  clergy  in  1559, 
180;  analysis  by,  of  results  of  North- 
ern visitation,  186  sqq.;  suggestion 
by,  for  finding  out  fate  of  clergy, 
195;  estimate  by,  of  deprived  or  dis- 
appearing clergy,  203 ;  on  Popery  in 
St.  John's  Coll.,  Oxon,  288;  shows 
oath  was  not  enforced  in  Univer- 
sities, 507. 

Sinnings,  Dr.,  a  Papist,  445. 

Slythurst,  Thos.,  President  of  Trin. 
Coll.,  Oxon,  deprived,  287. 

Smale,  Christopher,  of  Exeter  Coll., 
Oxon,  resigns,  294. 

Smith,  Melchior,  instituted  to  prebend, 
149,  151. 

Smith,  Nicholas,  conformed,  204. 

Smith,  Ric,  educated  at  Oxford,  255. 

Smythe,  Sir  Thomas,  to  convene  com- 
mittee to  remodel  religion,  18;  a 
layman  restored  as  Dean  of  Carlisle, 
156;  Visitor  of  Oxford  Univ.,  272; 
states  that  Mass  is  frequently  said  in 
London,  456;  reports  on  raids  to 
find  priests,  461. 

Snell,  Rcb.,  conformed,  146. 

Somerset,  recusants  in,  552. 

Soto,  Friar,  at  Oxford,  267. 

Southampton,  Countess  of,  recusant, 
417. 

Southampton,  Earl  of,  recusant,  42 1; 
outwardly  conforms,  517. 

Southern  visitation,  166  sqq.;  no  formal 
returns  of,  166. 

Southwell  Cathedral,  visitation  at, 
144;  fate  of  prebendaries  of,  146-7. 

Southwell  College,  visitation  of,  144. 


590 


INDEX 


Southworth,  Sir  John,  refused  to  con- 
form, committed  to  Abp.  Parker, 
518. 

Sparkes,  Thos.,  Suffragan  Bp.  of  Ber- 
wick conformed,  156. 

Spence,  Paul,  Marian  priest,  301. 

Spencer,  Sir  Davie,  priest,  427,  42S. 

Spes,  Don  Guerau  de,  Spanish  Ambas- 
sador in  England;  his  intrigues; 
plots  for  Mary  Q.  of  Scots,  480  sqq. ; 
suggests  means  for  restoring  England 
to  Catholic  religion,  480;  his  esti- 
mate of  Protestant  religion,  481 ; 
suggests  commercial  war  to  reduce 
England  to  Catholic  religion,  481 ; 
plots  with  E.  of  Northumberland, 
481 ;  describes  Cecil,  481 ;  encourages 
Catholics,  482;  receives  letters  from 
Catholics  secretly,  483;  trusts  suc- 
cess of  Rising  against  Elizabeth,  483; 
sums  up  leaders  of  discontent  against 
Elizabeth,  485 ;  uses  money  to  push 
forward  Rising,  485;  says  Elizabeth 
is  unwilling  that  D.  of  Norfolk 
should  marry  Q.  of  Scots,  485 ;  says 
English  nobles  agreed  to  liberate  Q. 
of  Scots,  486;  forbidden  to  plot, 
continues,  490;  reports  that  Northern 
Earls  had  been  summoned  to  Court, 
491 ;  estimates  falsely  forces  of  rebels, 
495;  gives  reasons  for  failure  of 
Rising,  496;  wants  Bull  against 
Elizabeth  after  Rising,  498;  reports 
executions,  498. 

Spiritual  Consolation  of  Bl.  John 
Fisher,  134. 

Staffordshire,  full  of  Popery,  399; 
wealthy  recusants  in,  400 ;  recusancy 
in,    551;    number   of    recusants   in, 

552- 

Standish,  Mr.,  wealthy  Papist,  escapes 
conference,  386. 

Stapleton  parish,  Mass  openly  cele- 
brated in,  311;  popish,  315. 

Stapleton,  Thos.,  educated  at  Oxford, 
255;  of  New  Coll.,  Oxon,  277; 
prebendary  of  Chichester,  424,  428. 

Staverton,  — ,  of  Balliol  Coll.,  suspect 
Papist,  283-4. 


Stiles,  Henry,  monk  of  Westminster, 
268. 

Stock  {or  Stoke),  Wm.,  Head  of  St. 
John's  Oxon,  ejected,  289  and  n. ; 
Principal  of  Gloucester  Hall,  292. 

Stoning,  Oliver,  priest,  deprived,  442  n. 

Stonor,  recusant  family,  in  Oxfordshire, 
404. 

Stopes,  Leonard,  of  St.  John's,  Oxon, 
290. 

Story,  — ,  priest,  427. 

Story,  Dr.,  educated  at  Oxford,  254; 
interrogated  by  Council,  28;  helped 
to  escape,  454;  wife  of,  recusant, 
469. 

Stowe,  John,  library  of,  ransacked  to 
find  popish  books,  458  and  n. 

Stradling,  Sir  Edw.,  recusant,  349. 

Stradling  family,  recusants,  468. 

Strangman,  John,  recusant,  422;  mar- 
ried to  Felton's  widow,  422. 

Stride,  Mr.  W.  K.,  Hist,  of  Exeter 
Coll.,  Oxon,  294. 

Strowger,  Geo.,  priest,  probably  de- 
prived, 442  n. 

Strype,  on  deliberations  for  remodelling 
religion,  18  n. ;  on  rioting  in  London 
churches,  25 ;  on  number  of  deprived 
clergy,  122;  188;  dependent  on 
Camden,  120;  comments  on  popish 
practices  in  Yorkshire,  327;  on  se- 
lection of  Elizabeth's  Council,  12  n. ; 
on  Popery  in  Exeter  Coll.,  Oxon, 
294;  reports  strength  of  Popery  in 
Carlisle  Diocese,  313;  admits  much 
"popish  leaven"  in  Universities,  and 
refusal  to  take  Orders,  259;  on 
election  of  Papist  as  Pres.  of  Corpus, 
Oxon,  276;  account  of  visitation  of 
St.  Paul's,  171;  on  observance  of 
Act  of  Uniformity  in  London,  and 
on  recusancy  of  clergy,  169-70;  on 
interview  between  Q.  Eliz.  and  Cath. 
bishops,  209;  falsely  records  submis- 
sion of  Bp.  Tunstall,  221;  on  ex- 
change of  bishops'  lands,  240;  on 
Roman  objections  to  Anglican  Orders, 
246 ;  records  raid  for  Mass-hearers  in 
ambassador's  house,  455;  instance  of 


INDEX 


59i 


his  unreliability,  443;  records  ordi- 
nation of  ignorant  mechanics  by 
Elizabethan  bishops,  439;  records  j 
holding  of  "gang-week"  in  Corn- 
wall,  etc.,  438;  says  London  always 
leads  in  reform,  434;  records  large 
number  of  Papists  in  Hants,  423. 

Stubbe's  house  in  Westminster,  Mass  at,    J 
456. 

Suffolk,  recusancy  in,  535. 

Sugden,  Chris.,  restored,  159. 

Summerscall,  Ric,  "ousted,"  160. 

Supplentes  Clause,  244  and  n. 

Supremacy,    Bill    of,     56;    Act    sum-    [ 
marised,  86;  Act  of,  put  into  execu- 
tion, 95;  Clergy  and  Act  of,  120  sqq.;    | 
Act  of,  208. 

Supreme  Head  of  English  Church, 
Committee  to  investigate  omission  of 
title  in  writs,  56. 

Surrey,  recusants  in,  422,  552. 

Surrey,  Earl  of,  sends  list  of  314  exe- 
cuted in  Durham  after  Rising,  497. 

Surtees'  Durha m  sometimes  misleading, 
154- 

Sussex,  priests  in,  427;  full  of  relics  of 
Popery,  428-9. 

Sussex,  Earl  of,  ardent  reformer,  47  n. ; 
reports  active  preparations  in  North 
for  rising,  490;  reports  refusal  of 
Earls  to  obey  Queen's  summons, 
491 ;  drives  back  rebels,  494. 

Swinburn,  John,  noted  as  "  evil  of 
religion,"  491. 

Swynborne,  John,  a  Justice,  "kept  a 
priest  to  say  him  Mass,"  341. 

Symonds,  Hy.,  priest,  deprived,  442  n. 


Tadcaster,  rebels  at,  493. 

Talbot,  John,  recusant,  400. 

Tarvyn,  visitation  at,  158. 

Tatham,  John,  Rector  of  Lincoln  Coll., 

Oxon,   suspect  favourer  of  Popery, 

285. 
Taverham,    John,    gives    up    living   to 

former  incumbent,  159. 
Taylor,   Dr.   Wm.,  departure  of,  from 

Christ's   Coll.,  Camb.,  262;  fate  of, 


probably  deprived,  152;  deprived, 
146. 

Taylour,  Ric,  priest,  probably  deprived, 
443  »■ 

Tempest,  Robt.,  likely  to  refuse  oath 
of  Supremacy,  305;  noted  as  "evil 
of  religion,"  491. 

Tempest,  — ,  recusant,  467. 

Temple,  Inner,  contained  many  recu- 
sants, 544. 

Temple,  Middle,  recusants  in,  467; 
contained  many  recusants,  544. 

Thimbleby,  family,  recusants,  394. 

Thirlby,  Thomas  (Bp.),  educated  at 
Cambridge,  255 ;  Feria's  opinion  of, 
85  n. ;  absent  from  opening  of  Par- 
liament, 45;  opposes  Bill  of  Uni- 
formity, 89  and  n. ;  great  revenue 
abandoned  by,  213;  summoned  be- 
fore Council,  215;  oath  tendered, 
refused,  deprived,  217;  does  not 
attend  Protestant  service,  472. 

Thornton,  John,  "  ousted,"  160;  priest, 
deprived,  442  n. 

Throckmorton,  — ,  prisoner  after  Rising, 
490. 

Thurland,  Edw.,  in  prison  for  hearing 
Mass,  528. 

Thurston,  Thos.,  deprived,  204  and  n. 

Tichborne,  recusant  family,  in  Hants, 
422,  468. 

Tiepolo,  Paulo,  on  liturgical  changes, 
28 ;  on  Mass  in  English,  33 ;  on  Bill 
for  dissolution  of  monasteries,  71  «.; 
records  conformity  of  Bp.  Kitchin, 
220. 

Tierney,  Canon,  on  Pope's  attitude 
towards  Elizabeth,  10  n. ;  Dodd,  on 
deprivation  of  certain  bishops,  218. 

Tinne,  James,  Mass  in  house  of,  530. 

Tirwhite,  Nich.,  priest  in  Lincoln- 
shire, 532. 

Todd,  Wm.,  sequestered,  and  later 
deprived,  156. 

Torture,  advocated  by  Elizabethan 
bishops,  331. 

Travers,  Wm.,  conforms,  515. 

Tregian,  — ,  a  Papist,  371. 

Tremayne,  Ric,  a  Papist,  371-2. 


592 


INDEX 


Tresham,  Dr.,  of  Merton  Coll.,  refused 
oath  of  Supremacy,  286. 

Tresham,  Sir  Thos.,  Prior  of  Order  of 
St.  John  of  Jerusalem  in  England, 
41  n. ;  absent  from  Parliament,  45 
and  «.,  291  n. 

Trinity  Coll.,  Oxon,  287-8. 

Tunstall,  Cuthbert  (Bp.),  educated  at 
Oxford  and  Cambridge,  255 ;  excused 
from  attending  Parliament,  45;  217; 
intrepidity  of,  218;  refuses  to  allow 
innovations  in  Durham  Diocese, 
219;  royal  mandate  to,  to  consecrate 
Parker  archbishop,  219,  236 ;  re- 
fused, 220,  236 ;  deprived,  220 ;  sup- 
posed conformity  of,  221;  death  and 
burial  of,  221-2;  admitted  to  have 
greater  episcopal  powers  than  his 
successor,  247. 

Turberville,  James  (Bp.),  educated  at 
Oxford,  255;  present  in  Parliament, 
46;  217. 

Turner,  Sharon,  misconception  of,  about 
events  of  Rising,  in  his  History  of 
England,  488. 

Turner,  — ,  of  Balliol  Coll.,  suspect 
Papist,  283,  284. 

Tutbury,  Mary  Q.  of  Scots  in  prison  at, 

479- 
Tuttyn,   John,   sequestered,   and  later 

deprived,  156. 
Twyne,     "old    Mr.,"   of    Canterbury, 

290  n. 
Tyrell,  Mr.,  Mass  at  house  of,  in  Essex, 

531- 

Tyrrell,  Sir  Hy.,  recusant,  469. 
Tyrwhitt^family,  recusants,  394. 

Ubiquitarians:  Jewel  says  there  are 
none  in  England,  411. 

Udall,  recusant  family,  in  Hants,  422. 

Umfreye,  Eliseus,  gives  up  living  to 
former  incumbent,  159. 

Uniformity,  Bill  of,  56;  introduced,  86 
sqq. ;  list  of  opponents  of,  89  sqq. ; 
objections  against  validity  of,  91  and 
n. ;  Act  of,  summary  of,  92  sqq. : 
came  into  operation  before  assigned 
statutory  date,  96;  clergy  and,  I20sqq. 


Universities,  to  be  purged,  17;  endorse 
most  of  Petition  of  Convocation,  59 ; 
depopulated  under  Henry  VIII  and 
Edward  VI,  124;  2535^.;  "seed 
plots  "  of  bishops,  253 ;  compared,  as 
regards  Reformation,  256;  inactivity 
in,  256;  deserted,  258;  to  be  visited, 
260;  oath  not  uniformly  enforced  in, 
5°7- 

University  Coll.,  Oxon,  280. 

Urban  VIII,  refuses  to  excommunicate 
Kings  of  France  and  Sweden — con- 
demns action  of  Pius  V,  500. 

Ursley,  Hugh,  recusant,  553. 

Vachell,  recusant  family,  in  Hants,  422. 

Valor  Ecclesiasticus,  quoted  for  number 
of  livings,  162. 

Vannes,  Peter,  absent  from  visitation, 
149;  conformed,  151. 

Vaux,  Lawrence,  deprived,  157. 

Vaux,  Lord,  supports  Douglas,  a  priest, 
460. 

Vavasour,  — ,  recusant,  467. 

Venn,  Mr.  J.,  on  Dr.  Caius,  266. 

Vernon,  Hy.,  recusant,  396. 

Vernon  family,  ' '  hinderers "  of  Re- 
formation, 339. 

"  Vicar  of  Bray,"  a  type,  167. 

Vicares,  John,  brewer  of  Hereford,  a 
Papist,  370. 

Villa  Garcia,  Friar  John,  at  Oxford,  257 
and  n. 

Visitation:  of  clergy,  ordered,  140; 
Northern,  names  of  Visitors,  143; 
of  Northern  Province,  analysis  of, 
160  sqq. ;  ordered,  219;  plea  of 
popish  clergy  to  escape,  415  ;  South- 
ern, 166 sqq.',  no  formal  returns  of, 
166. 

Visitors  (Ecclesiastical),  haste  of,  147. 

Vitelli,  Chiappino,  supposed  to  be  desig- 
nated leader  of  Rising  of  North,  492. 

Waferer,  Arden,  recusant,  468. 
Wainsford,    Michael,    likely  to   refuse 

oath  of  Supremacy,  305. 
Waldegrave,    Sir    Edw.,    Mass   at   his 

house,  456;  imprisoned,  15;  in  prison 


INDEX 


593 


for  Mass  matters,  457,  528;  to  be 
examined,  528;  his  son  at  school 
with  Lord  Chideock  Paulet's  son, 
529  and  «. 

Waldegrave,  Lady,  in  prison  for  hear- 
ing Mass,  528;  examined  about  help- 
ing priests,  529. 

Wales,  popish  practices  in,  353-5 ;  sup- 
posed to  be  willing  to  rise  with  Cath- 
olics against  Elizabeth,  483. 

Walpole,  Chris.  S.  J.,  of  Gonville, 
269. 

Walsingham,  Sir  Fras.,  educated  at 
Cambridge,  254. 

Wanley,  Humphrey,  ridiculous  com- 
ments of,  398  n. 

Wardale,  Mr.  J.  R.,  on  deprivation  of 
Thos.  Bailey,  263. 

Warham,  William  (Abp.),  educated  at 
Oxford,  254. 

Warneford,  recusant  family,  in  Hants, 
422. 

Warner,  John,  Warden  of  All  Souls 
Coll.,  Oxon,  281. 

Warren,  {or  Warner),  J.  absent  from 
visitation,  149;  deprived,  151. 

Warren,  Thos.,  at  Gloucester  Hall, 
292. 

Warwickshire,  not  supposed  to  be  re- 
cusant, 399;  recusancy  in,  550. 

Watson,  John,  Bishop  of  Winchester, 
423- 

Watson,  Roger,  conformed,  156. 

Watson,  Thomas,  Bp.  of  Lincoln, 
educated  at  Cambridge,  255;  absent 
from  Parliament,  44;  without  proxy  in 
Plmt.,  49;  Feria's  opinion  of,  85  n.; 
protests  at  Westminster  Conference 
against  want  of  fair  play,  109;  sent 
to  the  Tower,  no,  207;  reason  of 
imprisonment  of,  231 ;  deprived,  216; 
released  from  Tower,  216;  in  prison, 
303;  465- 

Wattes,  Thos. ,  reports  on  Popish  books 
in  Stowe's  library,  458  n. 

Weaver,  Rev.  F.  W.,  Somersetshire 
Incumbents,  195  n. 

Webb,  Mr.,  suspected  Papist,  265. 

Weldon,  John,  of  Gonville,  268. 

Q 


Wells,  Thos.,  priest,  probably  deprived, 

443  »• 

Wells,  recusant  family,  in  Hants,  422. 

Wendon,  Nicholas,  Archdeacon  of  Suf- 
folk, fled  beyond  the  sea,  380. 

Wendy,  Thos.,  appointed  Visitor  of 
Cambridge,  260. 

West,  Sir  Thos.,  receives  grant  of  re- 
cusant's lands,  545. 

Westcote,  Sebastian,  refused  to  sub- 
scribe, 171 ;  recusant  for  many  years, 
441-2. 

Westfaling,  Herbert  (Bp.  of  Hereford), 
sends  return  of  Oxford  diocese — full 
of  Popery,  403-4. 

Westminster,  Mass  said  in,  528. 

Westminster  Abbey  restored  to  Bene- 
dictines, 128. 

Westminster  Conference,  need  for,  66 ; 
98  sqq. ;  determined  on,  100;  de- 
scribed by  Jewel,  100;  opening  of, 
105;  adjourned,  108;  broken  up, 
no;  disputants  at,  bound  over,  no; 
official  account  of,  III;  Jewel  blames 
Catholics  for  break-up  of,  116;  Mr. 
Child  on  result  of,  119. 

Westmoreland,  County  of,  thought  by 
Bp.  Barnes  to  be  "pliable,"  314; 
recusancy  in,  534. 

Westmoreland  Deanery,  absentees  in, 
pronounced  contumacious,  157. 

Westmoreland,  Earl  of,  supports  Popery, 
311;  wants  Q.  of  Scots  declared 
Elizabeth's  successor,  485 ;  refuses  to 
obey  Queen's  summons,  491 ;  escapes 
to  Continent,  496-7. 

Wetherby,  rebels  at,  493. 

Whalley,  parish,  has  recusant  vicar, 
307;  deprived  priest  working  there 
as  schoolmaster,  308. 

Wharton,  Christopher,  of  Trin.  Coll., 
Oxford,  recusant  and  martyr,  288. 

Wharton,  Lady,  in  prison  for  hearing 
Mass,  528. 

Wharton,  Sir  Thomas,  imprisoned,  15; 
Mass  at  his  houses,  456,  515;  in 
prison  for  Mass  matters,  457,  528; 
outwardly  conforms,  516,  529. 

Whinke,  Wm,  of  Gonville  Coll.,  268. 


594 


INDEX 


White,  Dr.,  deposes  Master  of  Merton 
Coll.,  285. 

White  [Gabriel],  Warden  of  New  Coll. , 
accused  of  conniving  at  Popery,  279. 

White,  John  (Bp.),  educated  at  Oxford, 
255;  imprisoned,  15;  present  in  Par- 
liament, 46 ;  without  proxy  in  Plmt. , 
49;  asks  for  fair  play  at  West- 
minster Conference,  108;  sent  to  the 
Tower,  no,  207;  reason  for  imprison- 
ment of,  231;  deprived,  216;  death 
of,  223;  recorded  by  Bp.  Jewel, 
223  n. 

White,  Ric,  of  New  Coll.,  Oxon,  277, 
278. 

White,  Sir  Thomas,  on  constitution  of 
House  of  Commons,  53;  and  St. 
John's  Coll.,  Oxon,  289  sqq.  ;  buys 
"  Monks'  Hall,"  292. 

White,  recusant  family,  in  Hants,  422. 

Whitehead  (or  Whitehede),  David,  pro- 
posed for  See  of  Norwich,  230; 
Visitor  of  Oxford  University,  272. 

Whitehead,  Wm.,  sequestered,  154. 

Whitgift,  John,  Bp.  of  Worcester, 
sends  report  of  diocese  to  Council, 
362. 

Whittingham,Wm.,Dean,  reports  many 
Papists  enjoying  livings  who  have  not 
taken  oath,  192;  reports  stubborn- 
ness of  Durham,  307. 

Wigan,  visitation  at,  157. 

Wiggs,  Wm.,  of  St.  John's,  Oxon, 
291. 

Wilcocks  [Thomas],  Puritan  minister, 
466. 

Willerton  (or  Willanton),  John,  refused 
to  subscribe,  171. 

Williams,  Lord,  deposes  Master  of 
Merton  Coll.,  285. 

Williamson,  Geo.,  conformed,  151-2. 

Wilson,  Rev.  A.  H.,  on  Popery  in 
Magdalen  Coll.,  Oxon,  273-4. 

Wilson,  Thos.,  fate  of,  146. 

Wiltshire,  recusants  in,  552. 

Winchester  City,  Protestant  service 
book  refused  in,  175;  Feria  records 
same,  175;  opposed  to  Reformation, 
413;  Mass  said  in,  528. 


Winchester  College,  to  be  purged,  17. 
Winchester     Diocese,      recusancy      of 

clergy  of,    168;   particulars  of,  412- 

24;  statistics  of,  417;  recusancy  in, 

536;  recusants  in,  553. 
Winchester,  Marquess  of,  on  recusancy 

of  clergy  in  Hampshire,  168:  to  look 

to  exchange  of  bishops'  lands,  239 ; 

on  recusancy  in  Hants,  412-3. 
Windon,  Ralph,  of  St.  John's,  Oxon, 

290. 
Windsor,  Thos.,  conceals  church  stuff, 

275- 
Wisdom  [Robert],  proposed  for  See  of 

Bangor,  230. 
Wiseman,  family,  recusants,  468. 
Wood,  Ant.  a,  on  Papistry  in  Corpus 

Christi  Coll.,  Oxon,  275. 
Wood,  Robt.,  fate  of,  147. 
Wood,  Thos.,  priest,  deprived,  442  n. 
Wolseley,   Erasmus,  wealthy  recusant, 

400. 
Wolsey,  Thomas,  Cardinal,  educated  at 

Oxford,  254. 
Wootton,     Henry,     priest,     deprived, 

442  n. 
Wootton,    Dr.    Nich.,   on    Philip   IPs 

loyalty  to  England,  34  and  n. ;  selects 

Parker  as  Abp.  of  Cant.,  235. 
Worcester,    County    of,   recusancy    in, 

550. 
Worcester  Diocese,   disorders  amongst 

Chapter  of,  dilapidations  in,  355-6; 

statistics    of,     356-62;     opposed    to 

Reformation,   339,   343;    Popery  in, 

356-62;  recusancy  in,  550. 
Wright,  Dr.,  deposes  Master  of  Merton 

Coll.,  285. 
Wright,   Eliz.,    half-sister  of  Bl.  John 

Fisher,  134. 
Wright,     Wm.,    priest,    probably    de- 
prived, 442  n. 
Wryght,  Wm.,  Master  of  Balliol  Coll., 

resigned,  282. 
Wyatt,  John,  fate  of,  152. 
Wyndham,  family,  recusants,  552. 
Wynthorpe,  sequestration  of,  144. 
Wyot,  Wm.,  sub-Rector  of  Exeter  Coll., 

Oxon,  imprisoned,  294. 


INDEX 


595 


Yarmouth,    Gt.,    relics    of   Popery   in, 

384. 
Yate,  Edward,  recusant,  467. 
Yate,  John,  recusant,  410,  467. 
Yate,  recusant  family,  in  Oxfordshire, 

404;  recusants,  468,  552. 
Yates,  John,  "ousted,"  160. 
Yelverton,  Chas.,  S.  J.,   of  Gonville, 

269. 
Yendall,  Rob.,  of  Exeter  Coll.,  Oxon, 

flees  from  England,  294. 
Yepez  Diego,   on  elections  to  English 

Parliament,  54  and  n. 
York  Cathedral,  most  altars  still  stand- 
ing in,  165. 
York  City,  visitation  at,  148. 
York  Diocese,   visitation  of,  144  sqq. ; 

form  of  subscription  and  submission 

in,  148;  visitation  of,  results  of,  152  ; 

number  of  livings  in,  163;  323  sqq. ; 

return  of  vacant  livings  in,  337 ;  op- 


posed to  Reformation,  339 :  recus- 
ancy of  Justices  of,  523. 

Yorkshire,  priests  driven  into,  from 
Durham,  309;  Papists  in,  327;  num- 
ber of  recusants  in,  336. 

Young,  Dr.  J.,  made  Head  of  St. 
John's,  Camb.,  263. 

Young,  Thomas  (Abp.),  educated  at 
Oxford,  254;  records  exact  date  of 
deprivation  of  Bp.  of  St.  David's, 
218;  conscrated  Bp.  of  St.  David's, 
250;  complains  of  Popery  in  North, 
319  ;  appoints  Bp.  of  Carlisle  to  visit 
Chester  diocese,  320 ;  reports  on 
recusancy  amongst  magistrates,  323- 
4;  reports  favourably  on  his  diocese 
to  Q.  Elizabeth,  324;  wishes  Bp. 
Bonner  proceeded  against,  325;  re- 
ports on  Justices,  340;  reports  re- 
cusancy of  Justices,  523. 


CHISWICK    PRESS:    PRINTED    BY   CHARLES    WHITTTNGHAM    AND   CO. 
TOOKS   COURT,   CHANCERY   LANE,   LONDON. 


3f 


U  DAY  USE 

RETURN  TO  DESK  FROM  WHICH  BORROWED 

LOAN  DEPT. 

RENEWALS  ONLY—TEL.  NO.  642-3405 

This  book  is  due  on  the  last  date  stamped  below,  or 

on  the  date  to  which  renewed. 

Kenewed  books  are  subject  to  immediate  recall 


TED 


B£Cjjjjj_SEP43  70-5P»18 


DEI  21  123? 


N0f6~T97Z-fc* 


General  Li  brary 
University  of  CalifMM 


LD21A-60m-3  '70 
(N5382sl0)476-A-32 


I 


U.  C.  BERKELEY  LIBRARIES 


CDHTHmHTM 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 


